We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiNAC and ThreatLocker Protect based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Network Access Control (NAC) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."With FortiNAC, we don't need to configure the mass client site or access points. For example, we don't need to configure the switching site for a client's site. With Persistent Agent, it makes it much easier."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is having visibility over the IoT devices on the network."
"The most valuable features are usability and security."
"Provides containment and security and and carries out file analysis for cyber theft."
"This solution is very easy to implement and use. The interface is user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiNAC is compliance, which we can do with the clients and the endpoints on the network."
"The solution is good at giving a deep dive into each product. It tells you, for example, what is connected to the network. It gives us good reporting tools."
"The most valuable features are the ease of deployment and ease of use."
"Every single feature has been invaluable."
"While it can be frustrating at times, we appreciate the low-level security provided by the application whitelist."
"The interface is clean and well-organized, making it simple to navigate and find what we need."
"Using ThreatLocker is effortless because I can access it from an app on my phone, so I can help clients after hours. My client had an issue while I was at dinner, and I didn't have a tech on the problem, but I could deal with it from my phone. I can see what the client is doing and approve or deny it. It helps me deliver better service to my clients when they need it."
"The great thing is that if you get a malicious email and you try to run something, ThreatLocker is not going to let it do anything. It is not going to let anything infect your network."
"ThreatLocker Allowlisting has all of these features integrated into one console, making it effective."
"We use ThreatLocker's Allowlisting to whitelist specific applications and prevent unauthorized software from running."
"Application control, ring-fencing, and storage control are the most important features, followed closely by elevation."
"The GUI in Fortinet FortiNAC could improve."
"Fortinet FortiNAC's device compatibility could be improved, particularly for VoIP devices."
"Integration is hard in Fortinet FortiNAC, but they are evolving and getting better. For example, with Cisco, Aruba, Huawei, and Extreme devices, Fortinet FortiNAC is working properly, but some other devices have problems."
"The interface works fine, but it could be better."
"One of the biggest issues with Fortinet FortiNAC is that it is not intuitive and has a high learning curve."
"Its technical support needs improvement."
"FortiNAC could improve integration with other vendors."
"The product could be more user-friendly in terms of GUI."
"If you have a thousand computers with ThreatLocker agents on them, when you approve or create a new policy saying that Adobe Reader that matches this hashtag and meets certain criteria is allowed to be installed, it applies at the top level or the organization level. It applies to every computer in the company. When you make that new policy and push it out and it goes out and updates all of the clients. Unfortunately, at this time, it does not look like they stagger the push-out."
"ThreatLocker could offer more flexible training, like online or offline classes after hours. The fact that they even provide weekly training makes it seem silly to suggest, but some people can't do it during the day, so they want to train after work. They could also start a podcast about issues they see frequently and what requires attention. A podcast would be helpful to keep us all apprised about what's going on and/or offline training for those people who can't train during the week."
"From a reporting perspective, enhancing the ability to customize reports would be beneficial."
"We identified several areas that we would like to see improved."
"The reporting could be improved."
"The portal can be a little overwhelming at times from an administration point of view. It displays a lot of information, and it's all useful. However, sometimes there is too much on the screen to sift through, especially if you're trying to diagnose a client's problem with a piece of software. Maybe something has stopped working since they updated it, and we need to see if ThreatLocker is blocking a component of that software."
"There are some times when applications get submitted, the hashes don't really line up."
"One area I see for improvement is in the visibility of support tickets within the ThreatLocker ticketing system."
Fortinet FortiNAC is ranked 3rd in Network Access Control (NAC) with 44 reviews while ThreatLocker Protect is ranked 5th in Network Access Control (NAC) with 13 reviews. Fortinet FortiNAC is rated 7.6, while ThreatLocker Protect is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiNAC writes "I like the solution's native integration with other devices from the same vendor". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ThreatLocker Protect writes "Integration is simple, deployment is straightforward, and extensive well-written documentation is available online". Fortinet FortiNAC is most compared with Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), Aruba ClearPass, Forescout Platform and Fortinet FortiAuthenticator, whereas ThreatLocker Protect is most compared with SentinelOne Singularity Complete, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, CrowdStrike Falcon and Huntress. See our Fortinet FortiNAC vs. ThreatLocker Protect report.
See our list of best Network Access Control (NAC) vendors.
We monitor all Network Access Control (NAC) reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.