The solution's WAF needs an upgrade because it is not as good as FortiWeb, VMware, F5, or Imperva. 

The solution should be migrated to a software-defined network like Imperva and VMware. 

Fortinet's fixed application version has very good policies. Some features have been reduced in the new version of Fortinet FortiADC. Whenever Fortinet updates its application version, it should provide the same features.

For example, I was using MAC-based control for end users. Six months back, I updated the version of Fortinet OS. The MAC-based control on the new version was CLI-based, which is difficult to manage. I wanted the MAC-based control to be GUI-based.

Fortinet FortiADC should include an advanced-level SD-WAN.

The solution should improve finding false positives and false negatives. There are a lot of false positives. 

I believe FortiADC will be discontinued soon because many of its features are now available on other Fortinet devices. We don't use it much anymore except for specific use cases that require the global DNS feature. Link load balancing and SD-WAN are now built into FortiGate, but the web application firewall policies could be improved. 

I recently switched from an open-source version to FortiADC. For that, I believe I need to see other vendors such as the F5, as well as the A10 or something before I can say what can be improved.

Because it is so generic, the documentation requires special attention. A person who has not worked on Fortinet FortiADC or a similar product will struggle to understand what the document is trying to say.

The documentation could be more specific, and more detailed.

More step-by-step instructions for a new user, such as someone who has never used Fortinet FortiADC product from Fortinet or anyone else. Because I had previously used an open-source agent, I figured it out, but someone who hasn't would have some difficulties.

Basically, it could be more specific for those who are unfamiliar with the product, so that anyone could begin working with it.

The product’s price could be reduced. Also, some of its features need to be more advanced.

I would say in terms of their basic selling point was always everything built into one, even if you take their Fortigate firewalls, FortiWeb Application Firewall, be it FortiADC, they do push many features into one. And even the smallest version or the model of the device still gives you extensive features, but that comes at the cost of CPU and memory, which makes it hard. Even before you start to use extensive features, you start already seeing the CPU and memory be used to capacity. So at some point, I feel like there is a mismatch between the number of features they are offering and the device capacity on how much it can handle. If they can provide much more flexibility in designing it, that would be great because of the number of options it provides either fixed set as of now but given some open sources do more options, open source software, so configured on Linux and Freebase, they offer more than this. 

The product's stability for VMs could be better.

Fortinet has some drawbacks, and it can be a bit challenging to scale. Maybe some new features could be added to address these issues.

Another area of improvement is support. So the only problems are with support, and scaling can be a bit difficult. I

Any issues with this solution seem to be connected to technical support. They need to respond more quickly, providing a one or two day response time is not adequate. In addition, the company hasn't provided good technical documentation. It requires step by step procedures on how to configure some of the features on the FortiADC. They should come up with good KB articles and information related to the workings of the product. Fortinet specifies that the solution can be used for 1,000 clients, but actually we've found that you can't go above 400 for content compression and rewriting. If you go above 400, the solution becomes unresponsive. 

The solution’s pricing could be improved.

FortiADC is complex to configure so the interface should be improved. The commands that you need to use are complex.

The initial setup could be simplified.

The user interface could be more friendly and CLI could be more like that of Fortigate.

The price of the product is problematic.

The configuration is relatively complex. 

The L7 Persistent load-balancing algorithm has not worked for me after having tested it many times with my customer's in-house application. I'd like to suggest that the company make sure that all load-balancing algorithms work properly with most applications, even those that are in-house apps, because this is the main requirement of ADC.

After I created a virtual server, the servers are still reachable from the client side by a Ping command. That did not happen with F5. I have to work around it 
by setting up a traffic policy.

I did not test the SSL decryption feature but it's an essential point that FortiADC ensure they can support all the newest encryption methods and always be up to date.

It would be good if they built in a fully functional web application firewall.

They should update this product more often.

I think it would be helpful if Fortinet put more video examples on their cookbook site.

The product needs more development because it has issues with SSL traffic and encrypted traffic. It's been a little while since I used it and maybe things have improved but with Fortinet you can use a lot of features near the load balancing mechanism.

Fortinet decided to cut the product into two pieces, because FortiWeb has a lot of security features, but FortiADC has a load balancing mechanism. Customers need a fast solution with a load balancing solution and a web application firewall. If you are using FortiWeb, you can use FortiGuard Intelligence Service. But in the FortiADC, it has more load balancing features, but it lacks security features.