I have experience with Palo Alto Networks.

I have used other products from Fortinet, like Fortinet FortiGate 200F Series Data Sheet.

I'm actually reselling a managed service of SonicWall. It's not completely hands-on. Now all I do is get reports from it and I can look at the dashboard, however, I don't actually have to configure it.

I've also resold Barracuda.

We previously worked with pfSense. We switched to Fortinet FortiGate-VM because pfSense was giving us issues.

As a system integrator, my company not only provides services for Fortinet FortiGate-VM but also for products like Palo Alto and Check Point.

I also have experience with Cisco solutions.

At the perimeter, we also use Palo Alto. 

I still remember using Check Point, and it took a long time to apply a policy. To install the policy, you had to wait for ten to 20 minutes or even 30 minutes. Fortinet FortiGate-VM instantly applies the policy on the FortiGate itself.

I have experience with Check Point and Palo Alto. The first firewall that my company worked with was Check Point, and we have used it for many years.

I have used SonicWall. Fortinet has fewer hardware requirements than SonicWall. The basic requirement is the same.

I used FortiGate for 10 years. I also have experience with Azure Firewall Premium, Cisco ASA, and Cisco Firepower. 

I've deployed Cisco firewalls and hold certifications like CCNA and CCNP. But for security-level firewalls, I always go with FortiGate.

We were previously using Palo Alto before we switched to Fortigate. We switched after seeing the solution on a commercial.

We have used Palo Alto before, but we switched because at that time Fortinet was more scalable and there were more options available.

I also use Sophos Firewall, though not within the organization, but rather just for small business or personal use.

We used Cisco ASAs exclusively before changing exclusively to FortiGate.

We decided to change to FortiGate because the entitlement was too difficult on Cisco.

We used to have Sophos and we shifted to Fortinet about two years ago.

The integration of the active directory with Sophos was not up to spec. We decided to drop it and instead went ahead with Fortinet.

I don't have experience working with solutions deployed on the cloud, but I have experience with products deployed on-premises, like Veeam, which was deployed on the server, and VMware. I have worked with Palo Alto, which is a complicated solution.

We did previously use a different solution, however, the main office makes the decisions around product changes. They may have chosen this product as it is less expensive. 

We had been using a British Telecom hybrid VPN solution. In April, we stopped that and migrated to this new SD-WAN connectivity solution based on the Fortinet firewall. 

Other solutions I have used in the past include Check Point and Palo Alto.

I have used multiple types of firewalls and vendors, such as Cisco Firepower. Palo Alto, and Sophos.

Palo Alto is a great solution but it is expensive. I would choose them over Fortinet FortiGate-VM but they are too expensive. For my use case, Fortinet FortiGate-VM is the best for the environment.

Fortinet FortiGate-VM has discounts for generalized partners.

I previously used pfSense but found it was a bit complicated in terms of configuration and didn't give periodic updates. I switched to FortiGate because they were very consistent in giving updates on outbreaks and what they were doing to resolve them.

I also use Sophos. 

We also use the Cisco ASA firewalls. I do find that Fortinet is easier to handle than Cisco as you don't need to handle tasks via the command line, which makes it easier especially for junior-level developers.

This is our first firewall. We didn't previously have a different solution.

I've used Sophos in the past.

There are some technical issues with Sophos, at least on the older version, but with XG they kind-of did an upgrade. The interface of Sophos is great. It makes it easy to manage. In terms of functionality, both Fortigate and Sophos are very good and have almost the same functionality. It does depend on the license you apply for, however.

If you subscribe to Sandstorm in Sophos, you should expect that you get the functionality of Sandstorm. 

They are both quite equal on the market for the most part.

We required a solution that offered maintenance and support. Hence, we chose this product. 

I had used Sophos UTM, the Endpoints, Access Points, and XG for two years in my office. We switched because of FortiGate's service and because it is a more flexible solution.

I have used Sophos previously and I could it to be better. However, we have found the performance to be the same as Fortinet FortiGate-VM.

We have used Sophos and Palo Alto before. Palo Alto is expensive. Fortinet’s UI is more user-friendly. You can easily understand the source and destination requests.

I have worked with other firewalls. Which is best depends on the requirements. It is also dependent on the budget. We need to consider performance and scalability and take onto consideration how much support will be available as well. 

We are also using Palo Alto.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

I have worked with McAfee for a long time. The only thing that is better with McAfee is reporting, which is very good. They offer customized reports. We have decided to keep McAfee as our endpoint solution and use FortiGate-VM as our firewall.

I have worked with checkpoint. And that solution is also good. 

I like the comparative use of the SD-WAN feature of the solution. 

We already procured Sophos. I already ordered two devices from our Indian partner.

We are now partners with Sophos. We were partners with FortiGate for the last year.

The first reason that we switched is because of our work use cases. We moved 80% of our infrastructure to AWS outsource. So we do not require a big firewall anymore. We are a 50 to 70 employee organization so a different firewall is required. We have a 310 exchange enterprise-level firewall. So we moved to 83210 Sophos. The reason why we are changing to different technologies is the comprehensive reports that Sophos provides at the very basic entry-level firewall. In the FortiGate, we have to also have another plan for data analyzer.

The second thing which I believe is that FortiGate has some special functions in the CLI (command-line interface) mode. Sophos does not support that and all its functions are on the UI. So it's easier management in Sophos compared to FortiGate. 

In terms of ease of use, if you implement FortiGate in your organization, you must have a FortiGate person who knows FortiGate and then three, four, or five years to learn to maintain the FortiGate device. Whereas Sophos doesn't require that much because all the things are on the UI. So anybody can understand it from the UI.

I can give you an example of the issue with UI. This is a basic thing. In the UI, you could go to the FortiGate console and work directly in the command. You can manage it from the command but you must have command line experience to manage the FortiGate device. If I want to see the traffic and where it goes and where it's from or any attack, in case of an attack, you need FortiAnalyzer to analyze, to track the packet, to protect the traffic. So that's easily available in other products like Sophos 83210. 

The cost of Sophos and other players is better compared to the FortiGate. FortiGate is a more important product in the industry. It is recommended, but the cost is also a major point in evaluating Fortinet's firewall solutions in our niche.

We previously used Check Point. Though it is a good solution, the license costs became too high for our organization and obliged us to look for another option.

We used ASA (ASA 5510) before this. You had to have ASDM loaded and fight with different versions of Java just to administer the device.

We needed to do an upgrade, and for the cost of a new ASA, we got two FortiGates which have a web GUI that do not rely on Java.

While I typically work with Fortigate, I'm still learning to work with Cisco Firepower.

We use a variety of different Fortinet solutions.

I have personal experience with Palo Alto, Check Point, pfSense, and SonicWall.

I also use Cisco equipment and the main difference is that Cisco is more expensive.

We previously worked with a lot of open source products.

I've previously used Sophos, Palo Alto, and Check Point. We switched to FortiGate because it's straightforward and easy to manage and also has co-costing for customers.

I am working with Fortinet, Cisco, Palo Alto, and Forcepoint. I am using ASA from Cisco. It's very difficult to manage. Palo Alto is excellent, and the best in the market. Fortigate is right behind them. The central management is great.

We only use Fortigate. We don't use any other solution.

We previously used Fortinet 620B.

I have previously used pfSense (open source) before joining this company.

However, the company has been using Fortinet for a long time.

We previously used mostly Cisco products. We changed because of support and feature costs.

No.

I've only really used Cisco solutions in the past. I've only recently been introduced to Fortinet.

I used SonicWall, before they were sold to Dell. After Dell bought them, some issues came out.

I used Check Point, which was terrible for me. You can do almost nothing without software. The web interface does nothing. I do not like solutions with many components. In Check Point, you need to use over three interface to dig up anything.

I used Palo Alto 3020. It is a marvellous solution, but a bit expensive against its competitors. You can do everything in the web interface. There is no need for any installation (does not exist) and to manage it. It works quickly changing configuration and applying configuration. (Comparatively, FortiGate is fast in applying configuration.) You can easily rollback the previous configuration and backup configuration in Palo Alto. The firmware upgrade is like a baby's toy in Palo Alto.

İt is not fast to rollback config in SonicWall.

I used Untangle, pfSense, etc. However, there is no need to talk about them.

We had a previous solution and switched due to a corporate decision to eliminate some subscription fees.

Our previous solution simply did not live up to expectations.