We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiSandbox and Palo Alto Networks VM-Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiSandbox are the analysis options, artificial intelligence, and the many interfaces it provides."
"The most valuable features for me when it comes to Fortinet FortiSandbox are the integrity of the Sandbox and the power of the analyzing tool of the solution."
"The technical support is very good."
"The dynamic behavior analysis is excellent. We have many attacks caught by the FortiSandbox as zero-day attacks. Additionally, the administration is simple and can be customized to fit your companies needs."
"The GUI makes administration tasks straightforward."
"The most valuable features of Fortinet FortiSandbox are customization, ICAP protocol, and integration with other vendors. Additionally, the security work very well."
"Fortinet FortiSandbox is faster than other sandbox solutions."
"The most valuable feature was the EDR, endpoint detection and response."
"It is an easy-to-scale product."
"It ensures that every interaction, pre and post-loan processing, undergoes a thorough inspection, leveraging VPN features and comprehensive security protocols."
"The most valuable feature is the CLI."
"The solution enables organizations to enforce policies."
"We can monitor the traffic manually and detect threats. Additionally, we can block different IP addresses and URLs."
"We now know a lot more detail about what our users are doing on the network."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the zero-trust security architecture."
"It is very stable. It is fairly easy to use."
"The main area of concern in Fortinet FortiSandbox is its detection capabilities."
"The product is good but it could be speedier. In addition, it's quite complex."
"The initial setup is not too complex but could be easier."
"Product could include a user interface and be made simpler for customers to configure."
"There could be more templates and a higher number of simulated VMs to configure more use cases. Sometimes we need to configure many use cases in many different environments, and if the number of VMs that we configure is limited, we have to remove some and reconfigure the environment if we need another environment."
"At least once a week we have a false alarm. This needs to be adjusted so that we get fewer of these occurrences."
"It would be better if it had support for Mac and Linux."
"If we can have more dashboards, it would be good."
"In the next release, I would like to see better integration between the endpoints and the firewalls."
"It would be helpful if we had a direct number for the support manager or the supporting engineer. That would be better than having to email every time because there would be less wait."
"I would like to see a more thorough QA process. We have had some difficulties from bugs in releases."
"It has to be more scalable for the deployment of VMs on the cloud."
"We don't know how it will scale once we start putting more load on it."
"The user interface could use some improvement."
"The web interface is very slow, and it needs to be faster."
"It would be good if the common features work consistently in physical and virtual environments. There was an integration issue in the virtual deployment where it didn't report the interface counters, and we had to upgrade to the latest version, whereas the same thing has been working in the physical deployment for ages now. It seems that it was because of Azure. We were using VMware before, and we didn't have any such issues. We do see such small issues where we expect things to work, but they don't because of some incompatibilities. There also seems to be a limitation on how to do high availability in a virtualized environment. All features should be consistently available in physical and virtual environments. It is not always easy to integrate Palo Alto in the network management system. We would like to be able to compare two network management systems. They can maybe allow monitoring an interface through the GUI to create a reference or do a baseline check about whether your network monitoring system is actually giving you the correct traffic figures. You need traffic figures to be able to recognize the trends and plan the capacity."
Fortinet FortiSandbox is ranked 5th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 35 reviews while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is ranked 10th in Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) with 52 reviews. Fortinet FortiSandbox is rated 8.2, while Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiSandbox writes "Light and powerful solution design; useful to have". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Palo Alto Networks VM-Series writes "Many features are optimized for troubleshooting real-time scenarios, saving a lot of time". Fortinet FortiSandbox is most compared with Palo Alto Networks WildFire, Trellix Network Detection and Response, Check Point SandBlast Network, Microsoft Defender for Office 365 and Fortinet FortiEDR, whereas Palo Alto Networks VM-Series is most compared with Azure Firewall, Fortinet FortiGate-VM, Fortinet FortiGate, Cisco Secure Firewall and Palo Alto Networks NG Firewalls. See our Fortinet FortiSandbox vs. Palo Alto Networks VM-Series report.
See our list of best Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) vendors.
We monitor all Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) 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.