We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiClient and Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, SentinelOne, CrowdStrike and others in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP)."The console is easy to read. I also like the scanning part and the ability to move assets from one to the other."
"Exceptions are easy to create and the interface is easy to follow with a nice appearance."
"NGAV and EDR features are outstanding."
"Fortinet is very user-friendly for customers."
"The setup is pretty simple."
"It is very easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, with ten being very easy to set up."
"The stability is very good."
"I like FortiClient EMS. FortiEDR has a lot of great features like lockdown mode, remote wipes, and encryption. I can set malware outbreak policies and controls for detecting abnormalities. You can also simulate phishing attacks."
"Starting from FortiGate and from the EMS server, you have to begin at the endpoint, and that's the most useful thing about using FortiClient."
"Fortinet FortiClient's scalability is very good because it has no limitations."
"It is a fantastic product. Its overall security is valuable. We are very impressed with the web filtering and the application firewall it provides."
"The service is centralized."
"From my perspective as an end user, it's consistently stable, and I would rate the stability as a nine out of ten."
"I find it very easy to configure and also very stable."
"The technical support from Fortinet and local vendors is good."
"It is not at all interesting for me as a standalone product, but as a product that is integrated with FortiGate with all features, it is actually a great tool and a great experience. I had test installed FortiClient working from home. I remembered and knew which web categories were denied or allowed. All those policies were correctly reflected standalone, for example, on my laptop."
"The fact that it is a cloud proxy solution is another feature we like. For example, if you acquire a new company, you can use it to protect that new company without the need to install anything physically on their networks."
"For us, the primary goal is protection on the web, and that's extremely important. We're not using any of the other services at this time. The web part is key to the success of the organization. It gives us the ability to protect. It can isolate. It opens the session in an isolated format so that the code isn't running locally. It is running over in the Menlo environment, not in ours. It is not running on the local computer, whereas if you were to go to a normal website, it would run Java or something else on the local machine and potentially execute the malicious code locally. So, it does give us that level of protection."
"Accessing the internet with a proxy from anywhere is the most valuable feature. It ensures that users are only able to browse legitimate websites. If they happen to go to a legitimate website with a malicious payload, the isolation feature will take care of that."
"It has reduced security events to follow up on. While it is not 100%, there has been probably a 90% or more reduction. We were getting hit left, right, and center constantly from people browsing the Internet and hitting bad websites. It was not just bad websites that were stood up to be malicious, but good sites that were compromised."
"FortiEDR can be improved by providing more detailed reporting."
"The solution's installation from a central installation server could be improved because the engineers had a little bit of trouble getting it installed from a central location."
"We've had a lot of false positives; things incorrectly flagged that require manual configuration to allow. Even worse, after we allow a legitimate program, it sometimes gets flagged again after an update. This has caused a lot of extra work for my team."
"We've encountered challenges during API deployment, occasionally resulting in unstable environments."
"They can include the automation for the realtime updates. We have a network infrastructure with remote sites. Whenever they send updates, they are not automated. We have to go into the console and push those updates. I wish it was more automated. The update file is currently around 31 MB. It could be smaller."
"The amount of usage, the number of details we get, or the number of options that can be tweaked is limited in comparison to that with other EDR solutions"
"The dashboard isn't easy to access and manage."
"The solution should address emerging threats like SQL injection."
"Its stability can be improved. It is not as reliable as I would like it to be. There are times when things don't work quite right. Our biggest pain point is not related to Fortinet FortiClient and the whole scheme of things. It is related to one of the additional services called FortiGuard. They are the arm that does all of the updates to definitions, keeps all the signatures updated, and responds to new threats and whatnot. What we have found is that they react quickly, but sometimes their solutions aren't compatible with all of the components of the Fortinet security suite, specifically around FortiSandbox."
"I have yet to find the benefits of the latest upgraded version."
"One area for improvement in FortiClient is the speed of connectivity."
"The solution can improve by adding new remote console or endpoint features to make the solution easier to use."
"It would be interesting if the solution offered a way to try to investigate and create a use case to trace vectors."
"Technical support needs to determine priority level based on the cases rather than the support package bundle."
"I haven't found that that solution does anything amazing."
"FortiClient is not great in Linux."
"We are now transitioning to another solution. The main reason for that is that managing all of the exceptions and troubleshooting all of the issues our users have had connecting to the internet has become too significant in terms of workload, compared to what we hope we will have with another solution."
"The user monitoring could still be improved."
"Currently, I don't have a good way to see which of my rules are being used in the access control lists. I have numerous entries, but are they all still needed? A report that would show me my list of who is allowed and whether we're actually using it would be useful because I can then go clean up my list. It would be easier to manage. We would eliminate the vulnerability of unused services."
"In the best of all worlds, we wouldn't have to make any exceptions. However, that is a big ask because a lot of that depends on how websites are constructed. For example, there are some very complex, application-oriented sites that we end up making exceptions for. It is really not that big an issue for us to make the exceptions. We feel like we are doing that without a huge impact on our security posture, but we do have to make some exceptions for complex sites, e.g., mostly SaaS-type sites and applications."
More Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway Pricing and Cost Advice →
Fortinet FortiClient is ranked 14th in Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) with 86 reviews while Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is ranked 21st in Secure Web Gateways (SWG) with 4 reviews. Fortinet FortiClient is rated 8.0, while Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiClient writes "Easy to set up and user-friendly with good support ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway writes "Secures users wherever they are and enable us to inspect SSL traffic, but we encountered too many issues". Fortinet FortiClient is most compared with OpenVPN Access Server, Microsoft Defender for Endpoint, Kaspersky Endpoint Security for Business, Microsoft Azure VPN Gateway and Ivanti Connect Secure, whereas Menlo Security Secure Web Gateway is most compared with Talon, Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler Internet Access, SentinelOne Singularity Complete and Skyhigh Security.
We monitor all Endpoint Protection Platform (EPP) 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.