They need to do more with their marketing. That's what's wrong with them. Nobody knows they do all this other stuff. I love the product. For an enterprise-level system, you never have to explain why you're recommending Fortinet, whereas you might have to do that if you want to use the Ubiquiti Professional or the new Netgear line, but you don't have to explain Fortinet. It has been remarkable to work with.

It would be nice if they had some smaller switches or hubs. They should offer two-port, three-port, or four-port devices so that you don't have to buy an eight-port switch, and you don't have to use an unmanaged element, but their product line is very complete, and I can't say enough about it.

In comparison to the Extreme and UBNT wireless solutions, we find that Fortinet falls short in terms of validity management, practice management, and firmware arrangement.

The initial setup is complex and has room for improvement.

I would like to have some customized modifications to the radio bands so that we can see which is interfering with the wireless IP. If FortiWLM could provide a tool where the user could generate a heat map of the space in which the FortiWLM is operating, this would be a valuable addition to the solution. Most organizations rely on their existing knowledge of wireless before deploying a wireless solution. When we look at the market, we see many more commercial products which provide comprehensive tools. Fortinet has the basic tool, but I don't use it because it is not flexible enough. If Fortinet could provide us with flexible customization of band management, and add a special dashboard where the user can see other devices and settings, as well as a tool to generate a heat map in the next version, this would greatly improve the solution.

Cost is something that could be improved, but you have to pay for what you get.

Something that can be improved by Fortinet is the organization-wide policy on service contracts. I find that it is a little bit stressful. They have a business model where whatever you buy, you must make a service contract. You can do that for one year or three years or five years. But it seems a little bit like a moneymaking machine rather than a necessity. They require these service contracts and that is not always so well accepted by the clients.  

To judge the circumstances of the market by bigger business clients who can afford these additional fees may not be the best way to create policy. I work mostly with smaller clients on the threshold of breaking into a bigger business landscape. Mostly those clients are private people and for these people, these business requirements Fortinet has in place are not the best way to build up their successes.  

I guess I cannot criticize their practices as failing because the company is obviously successful with it. I understand that they also need to make money for evolution, for research and development to stay competitive. But for the private sector, there is a gap. You have these professional suppliers like Aruba and Fortinet and then you have the small suppliers whose products you can buy in the shop around the corner. There is nothing in between. I think Fortinet could be more friendly toward smaller companies and individuals so they could have success with the products while building their businesses and then they are more likely to continue to use the products later.  

I guess one other improvement they might consider making is with the design of the product. They do not have the most beautiful equipment I have seen in my life. They could hire a designer and the products could be improved substantially in a visual way.  

We're a reference customer for Fortinet, so I get a lot of calls, usually from other schools or colleges, that are looking at deploying the product. When talking to them, they tell me about some of the things that they're looking at. There are some other companies out there that have a feature that's on the access point that allows them to mimic users.

For example, if you have an access point in an area, and people are complaining about an issue, the feature that I'm being told is on a competitor's device would allow you to connect to that access point, and actually impersonate a connected device. You're able to troubleshoot any issue that an end-user may be reporting, and hopefully duplicate it. To me, that seems like an amazing feature.

I would like to see something like that in the Fortinet solution.

There is very little publicly available information about Virtual Cell and Single Channel Architecture. Promotion of the overall technology is limited as well. Being more vocal about a product that has many advantages would go a long way to eliminating a lot of the confusion and negative perception about Virtual Cell and Single Channel Architecture.

The centralized management features could be improved. I think they're good, but I think they could be better.

The range needs some improvement and also the stability. 

The solution should improve user capacity. 

The technical support response time can use improvement.

The pricing for the solution is expensive and can be improved.

There are three methods that Fortinet offers wirelessly. The first is industrial, where you have a wireless controller separately and you don't have a FortiGate in the equation. The second is what we call integrated: You get a FortiAP that connects directly to your FortiGate. The third is cloud AP where you just have the AP and you control it through the cloud. On that, they could improve the management side of it. The management side is a bit lacking in its reporting.

One of the main features that I see as lacking in any of the Fortinet products is the reporting. If you want to have proper, end-to-end reporting, you must purchase the FortiAnalyzer which is the dedicated reporting and analyzing tool. For a small customer who has only a few APs, you can't justify asking them to run the FortiAnalyzer because that will incur some amount of cost. If Fortinet could offer some better, built-in reporting, that would be a point of improvement.

The guest management features need to be improved by adding automation. There is a facility for guest management through a portal, but it should be automatic. As it is now, the IT person has to edit and do things manually. All of the details should be maintained in the FortiCloud.

I would like to see some small access points or signal extenders added to the product line to help with areas that do not have full coverage. 

There is a need to put a logging device in, which could be an analyzer, so that, if you want to have an inside-up graph and weekly and monthly graphics reports, you'd be able to do so.

When using the FortiGate as the wireless controller, you cannot have automatic user registration, which is something that they should offer. That way, you can email the user, in their account, and it would be easier.

Sometimes we feel that we are buying the top-of-the-line technology and, six months or eight months later, we feel it is already obsolete. New smartphones bring new technology, new ways to connect. Sometimes we have this bad feeling that, even though we are investing tons of money, technology is moving faster than us. So even with this huge amount of investment, one year later we are totally obsolete compared with the new technology.

They need to make it move faster. They need to make it easier to configure, easier to monitor, easier to report.

We have great tech support from Fortinet, here in Mexico. But if we have a big issue, like a big bug, and they need to produce new versions of the software in their R&D departments, this is the slowest part.

The roaming of Fortinet FortiWLM could improve when comparing it to other solutions. We are missing some of the functionality in the controller. Additionally, they should offer more logs instead of using FortiAnalyzer because all the users will not be using the same thing.

This solution should be easier to set up in a production environment.

Documentation could be improved.

The interface could certainly do with some improvement. We have other customers with WiFi networks, and they always use Ubiquiti. With Ubiquiti, it's a much better user interface, and it is much easier to configure. I managed to get some certificates myself, so I can speak for some features that we need to consider on our wireless networks that are easier to implement with Ubiquiti which aren't so straightforward with Fortinet.

When it comes to Ubiquiti, we have something that we use a lot which is similar to a site survey. Once all the access points are positioned physically inside the office, we can perform a scan on the premises themselves, so the customers can find which channels have more interference, which have less interference, and automatically distribute channels for each access point, and make it so these access points do not cause interference with each other. That feature is extremely useful for us, and it is something that is sorely lacking in Fortinet FortiWLM.

With FortiWLM, we have to perform that type of survey manually, discovering which channels have less interference, and then manually distribute these channels to each access point.

Areas for improvement would be the compatibility with Apple products and cross-platform integration. In the next release, I would like them to include accessibility authentication for user authentication.

In the next release, they could improve by adding a controller-less server, or architecture that is provided in other solutions, such as Aruba. This would be a great benefit for customers. Additionally, they could improve the feature sets to be more competitive.