We performed a comparison between Fortinet FortiWeb and Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft, F5 and others in Web Application Firewall (WAF)."The most valuable feature of this solution is Fail-Open."
"The most valuable features in Fortinet FortiWeb are sandboxing and threat prevention."
"The most valuable feature is that this product represents a whole solution, including a WAF, and even anti-defacements."
"The support services, performance, and pricing are all valuable features. The performance is excellent."
"I like FortiWeb's usability and ease of configuration. It's simple to configure rules and exceptions inside the attack log. We block everything by default. If something isn't working, we ask the system admin to adjust the template and add exceptions."
"FortiWeb is easy to operate with a reasonably high level of protection. FortiWeb provides multiple deployment options with a physical or virtual (FortiWeb-VM) appliance, and acts either as a reverse/transparent proxy or out-of-band. It is also available on AWS and Azure."
"The most valuable feature of Fortinet FortiWeb is the reports and the AI-based features."
"The valuable feature of Fortinet FortiWeb vulnerability scanner"
"Reverse proxy is one of a kind."
More Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway [EOL] Pros →
"Most of the deployment is done by our development team because they have some parameters that match the configuration. However, when we initially did the deployment we used a consultant company."
"For advanced users, it would be really useful to have access and the ability to manipulate packets. If we can access and manipulate the contents of packets, even encrypted packets... that would be powerful. Since we're looking at packets arriving at our network, we would have the private key to access those packets and their information."
"A better load balancer is needed when multiple servers are used for the same website."
"The initial setup is complex."
"I would like to see more improvements with respect to threat intelligence."
"They could improve their support a little bit for faster response time."
"I would like to have an antivirus option."
"Another area for improvement is logging. When troubleshooting, the logs sometimes take a while to update. We've had people report that some things aren't logged if they're successful. It's a bit hit-and-miss. For example, sometimes people access one of our services, and it's successful, but we don't see that in the logs."
"No issues with scalability but you are limited on hardware."
More Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway [EOL] Cons →
Earn 20 points
Fortinet FortiWeb is ranked 4th in Web Application Firewall (WAF) with 83 reviews while Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Web Application Firewall (WAF). Fortinet FortiWeb is rated 8.0, while Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway [EOL] is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Fortinet FortiWeb writes "Cost-effective, easy to configure, and works very well as a single solution for multiple environments". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway [EOL] writes "Unique reverse proxy, troubleshooting tools, ease of use, made it the right choice". Fortinet FortiWeb is most compared with F5 Advanced WAF, Fortinet FortiADC, AWS WAF, Azure Web Application Firewall and Imperva Web Application Firewall, whereas Microsoft Forefront Threat Management Gateway [EOL] is most compared with .
We monitor all Web Application Firewall (WAF) 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.