We had our own solution. We called it SecOps. It had something from RedHat and something from OPNsense. We built it that way. We were using that. We switched to FortiWeb because of two reasons. The first reason was the cost, and the second thing was that we wanted a single solution that can be implemented everywhere. We are from R&D. We decide on a solution, and then our product team implements it. When we have multiple tools, operations and maintenance become quite a headache because every tool has its own learning curve. All tools are not the same.

We switched from Check Point to FortiWeb. There were two main reasons behind it:

1. FortiNet offers more options when compared to Check Point. 
2. Also, support is cheaper. Like support-wise, it's significantly cheaper to get support from Fortinet.

Those were the main reasons. 

We actually considered Palo Alto. I have lots of experience with Palo Alto, but we ended up not going with them because it's more expensive. The expense is not just in terms of support, but also the hardware itself. Check Point is more expensive in terms of support. 

Fortinet wins in terms of lower cost, both for support and comparable hardware. And they have more options – a broader product line. It seems like Fortinet is trying to cover everything in the network. Check Point specifically focuses on firewalls. 

Palo Alto offers broader security coverage than Check Point, but not as much as FortiNet, and they're the most expensive option. So, Check Point is just a standard firewall company – not flexible and very expensive for support.

We're still evaluating FortiWeb. In my opinion, it's a good solution for simple websites that you can set up and then mostly leave alone. 

If it's an average website without advanced features or one that won't be developed into something more complex, then FortiWeb fits well. This simplicity could be an advantage for some users. I try not to rate things as simply good or bad – it depends on how you use them. It's a good product, especially since we have a lot to handle. If I have an average website, the last thing I want is someone making a wrong configuration change or an application update crashing everything. That would waste our department's time and money to troubleshoot. 

FortiWeb is actually ideal if I have a small website with basic features – a place where people can go to read, post text, and maybe make simple purchases.

I would set it up and then mostly forget about it. It's great when it gives you no headaches and works reliably. It's like using the right vehicle for the job. You don't want a huge truck to go grocery shopping. You need a small, efficient car. But if you're in the moving business, a truck is what you want. So again, it's a tool for its purpose. I don't see it as good or bad, but rather if it's good for this specific thing. I do see scalability as a limitation, but it's scalable for its intended use. It's a great tool for what it's designed to do.

We might use it more in the future, likely as a result of more website development, not driven by our IT plans. Our websites might evolve as the market does. I'd put FortiWeb on our standard user sites. I'm happy with that. But if we need specialized features, then we'll need a specialized solution. That's just my opinion. 

Ultimately, how FortiWeb evolves depends on business needs and justification. If something new and big comes along in the market – something that needs to move huge amounts of data – we might need different tools. Or, if the market just demands short video clips, then maybe FortiWeb is fine.

We didn't have a WAF solution, but we used Palo Alto Networks Next-Generation Firewalls. While these firewalls had many WAF capabilities, they weren't considered WAF products. 

Our main reason for deploying a WAF solution was to satisfy regulatory requirements. To get a PCI Level One certification, we need a WAF on some of these public-facing services. FortiWeb Cloud ticked all the boxes and met our requirements.

We have used Citrix WAF and the F5. FortiWeb offers most of the same features at a better price. 

In recent years, we've spent money on various projects that required us to protect applications. We have the Azure firewall deployed, and we paid a third-party SOC company to monitor it for attacks. It didn't offer out-of-the-box complete protection easy to customize, so we configure it for watching threats and raised alerts, that's means additional effort. 

We feel that FortiWeb is a better way to go than Azure Web Firewall in our scenario because FortiWeb has some advantages in pricing and features. It's easier to configure and maintain. Also, FortiWeb uses templates. 

We just had web servers on the internet and the AWS Web Application Firewalls in front of them. I wasn't happy with those, so I added Fortinet in front of them. We still use AWS, but Fortinet is the first line.

We switched because I'm very paranoid. I'm big on security. Working in IT for many years, Fortinet was always a trusted name in routers, so I thought I'd give the FortiWeb web application firewalls a go and I haven't looked back.

I also use F5. It's got better pricing and is quite stable as well. However, if you don't know how to configure it, it can be a disaster. 

We previously used F5.

We did not previously use a different solution. 

We did have some specific hardware firewall solutions that were in place at data centers. When we went to the cloud for our applications, we wanted to move to a cloud-based front-end firewall infrastructure. We didn't want to be managing the hardware at locations. 

I previously used the Cisco IOS CLI for the web interface. It's more complicated than Fortinet. Fortinet offers simple, easy-to-use solutions. We are also a vendor for F5 which offers similar features and functionality to Fortinet but is more expensive. 

It was the very first time that we used a web application firewall. We never used anything before.

Prior to Fortinet, we used Netgear, but this was a long time ago. I think this was 15 years ago.

We previously used F5. F5 needs a bit of a higher skill set. It takes some experience to operate.

We sell and work with several options, but we feel comfortable with Fortinet FortiWeb because the performance and feedback are great.

We did not use another solution prior to Fortinet FortiWeb.

I have used many other solutions and I formally recommend NGINX. The challenge I have with NGINX is handing over the project to the end customer. The skillsets for managing NGINX as a WAF are a lot. This is what was drawing me towards F5. I wanted something that is seamless from end-to-end, for the customer.

The advantages of NGINX are that it's community-based, and you can get it anytime. Fortinet FortiWeb you have to go through a channel, there's an initial acquisition, and then the annual support which are things that we don't have to consider when we're dealing with NGINX.

We use Sophos as well.

We also currently use Cisco for some security and protection.

We did not use another similar solution before choosing FortiWeb.

We did not have a solution that we previously used.

We previously used Cisco. We switched because all they are is a brand name. It was a failure. We gave it a year to improve the product and it didn't so we switched. 

We were using combination of solutions, due to our organisation's policies. Due to lack of visibility, administrative issues and response times, we shifted.

My web site used MS NLB service for load balancing and IPS firewall at first, but when our site's connection grew bigger, we discovered that we needed another solution. We chose FortiWeb after a little research into the market.

This solution replaced some old Juniper ISG firewalls that were EoL; nobody in the company had Juniper SRX experience and the choice was made for Fortinet before I started at the company.

We were using Imperva as our WAF solution, which is also a market leader (as per Gartner Magic Quadrant) and provides lots of flexibility and cloud integration options. However, due to high cost, the organization decided to switch to Fortinet Fortiweb.

One of the best things about Azure Firewall is the automation. There is a huge difference. The second thing is pricing. 

With FortiWeb, when you want to buy HA, you need to start designing high availability across different regions. With Azure, it comes by default.

Previously with another company, we used ModSecurity, which is an open-source solution. FortiWeb is better.

If I compare with F5 solutions, I would suggest F5.

Fortinet was the first brand we thought about, because we had been using FortiGate for a few years, and we thought they had some common architecture.

I did not previously use a different solution.

Previously used F5, NetScaler, Imperva. Other products feature LB WAFs, so a limited WAF feature. This product's primary feature is WAF. I chose this product because it prioritizes security.

We used Microsoft ISA software firewall, and we encountered hardware and software failures a lot. We decided to change to a hardware solution because of many power outages.

ISA Server was working as a reverse proxy, but it lacks web attack prevention. Also, because the platform is dedicated and the OS is hardened.

I have also worked with similar solutions by F5 and Barracuda. FortiWeb is easier to configure because the F5 product requires more technical knowledge. The Barracuda solution has the advantage that DDoS support is built-in and there is no need to integrate with other products.

The previous vendor discontinued its product.

Previously, I did not use another solution.

We had a Cisco router and a Barracuda. We switched from that to a FortiGatefirewall and the Cisco Router. Finally, when the Cisco router was going bad, we replaced it with a FortiGate 100 for firewall and routing capability.

We did use another solution, but, compared with the competition, we got the best ratio of performance to price when we chose Fortinet. We could use F5, for example, but the price is not as good.

We previously used NetScaler.

I did not previously use a different solution.

We did not use a WAF before. We used Microsoft TMG, but it is not a WAF.

F5, A10, KEMP.

I switched from SonicWALL to Fortinet. I am happier now.

We previously used Cisco PIX and ASA. We switched because there is no next-gen firewall in the Cisco portfolio.

My client was using it when we took over operation of the project.

I am familiar with solutions from other vendors, but the majority of my knowledge is of Fortinet products.