We also implemented Check Point solution, but it was a more complex phase. Unlike Cisco VPN solution, Check Point lacked the flexibility to integrate with our existing identity stores, requiring all users to be local.

I have also worked with the FortiClient. FortiClient is much more versatile, easy to configure, and is more functional.

Earlier, we connected the VPN using a traditional two-factor authentication method, likely using hardware tokens or a similar mechanism. In comparison, Cisco IOS SSL VPN provides a simpler username and password-based authentication.

We are mainly talking about an enterprise level solution, so we do not do too much on the cloud, although I do make use of the new Palo Alto VPN cloud, also known as Prisma VPN. 

I have used two other vendors during my experience and work: SFI and Forcepoint.

Cisco is better from a technical standpoint, but Forcepoint is less expensive and is currently penetrating the Egyptian market. 

Forcepoint One is a cloud-hosted product that includes a DNS layer, cloud firewall, and all the features of Cisco VPN. 

When I compared the two products, I found that Forcepoint is a good value for the price, considering the resources it offers.

I'm not sure if the company has ever used a different VPN previously. 

Some of the solutions that our customers are using are Microsoft 365, Cisco VPN Access, and Cisco AnyConnect with the physical USB Token to input the password.

The Token support will expire soon. Currently, we are researching similar solutions.

I used Fortinet before using Cisco IOS SSL VPN. 

I have used Fortinet as well and that product is stable as well. It is another solid, stable solution. They provide similar stability, features, and functionality. There are some other products we still use for other things because of Cisco's lack of discount programs for non-profit organizations.