That's true for most enterprise firewall manufacturers. Those that don't have an annual renewal (I'm looking at you Ubiquiti) typically don't offer enterprise features, or require pulling in services from other providers via dependent integrations (pfSense/OpenSense).
@@balla2172 Free, but via other providers, for example Squid. Squid's maintained by all volunteers, so if their volunteer pool dries up, they get bought, or otherwise disappear, then it's back to square one for proxy. I have nothing againt pfSense, OpnSense, or any of the other FreeBSD based firewall software, that's what I learned on, and I'm not knocking their efficacy either. I'm just of the opinion that they aren't suited for the enterprise world because it's perpetually precarious. Paid subscriptions are cost items, but they are also stable and guaranteed; if a business is going by the standard SLA of 99.999% uptime, they can't afford to have to switch out services.
All Fortinet all the time! Back in the day I used to work with Sonicwall, so I feel a little bad beating up on them, but not much. If we re-wound the clock six years or so it would have been a much more even contest, but at this point Sonicwall is pretty far behind.
can you re-review this , do you feel the same? we currently use sonicwall and i pull my hair a lot , i cant even export IPs from one firewall to put into another firewall.. I use Untangle at home and love it.. looking at pfsense but it makes NO SENSE! I would like to see a more apples to apple compare like sonicwall can do IPsec site to site linking many subnets (Site A) to one subnet (site B) or even many to many.. untangle could only talk to one subnet when creating ipsec to sonicwall, i blame this on sonicwall doing some magic in the background beyound the IPSEC standards.
My Sonicwall experience hits a wall (ha!) about two years ago, I keep tabs on lines and features but not so much implementation. I have a friend who does mostly Sonicwall, I'll check with him and see if we can get something together.
SD-WAN: "Sonicwall is not even a player!" So you are judging a mid-tier baseball team on their ability to play football? K. It's like judging fish by their ability to climb a tree.
Also a BIG glaring oversite: Sonicwall SoHo base unit - $250. Fortigate FN-40F: $300 Sonicwall w/ the 3 years advanced: $500 Fort-gate w/ the 1 year protection: $1k. Apples to Oranges, bud.
@@ScottBoydathome I agree with you, but there is a substantial chunk of the SMB/small enterprise cybersecurity market that thinks it is an apples to apples comparison. Hopefully that's dispelled.
I have tried SonicWALL's SD-WAN and its not all that , once you use a interface for SD-WAN you are done.. it can no longer be used for anything else. so you best have plenty of spare ports on your SonicWALL if you want to use SD-WAN , and if you have a small TZ in a remote site that don't fair well.
Fortinet needs to pay an extra subscribing fee every year.
That's true for most enterprise firewall manufacturers. Those that don't have an annual renewal (I'm looking at you Ubiquiti) typically don't offer enterprise features, or require pulling in services from other providers via dependent integrations (pfSense/OpenSense).
@@techiemike3607 how much are those subscriptions again for pfsense/opnsense
@@balla2172 Free, but via other providers, for example Squid. Squid's maintained by all volunteers, so if their volunteer pool dries up, they get bought, or otherwise disappear, then it's back to square one for proxy. I have nothing againt pfSense, OpnSense, or any of the other FreeBSD based firewall software, that's what I learned on, and I'm not knocking their efficacy either. I'm just of the opinion that they aren't suited for the enterprise world because it's perpetually precarious. Paid subscriptions are cost items, but they are also stable and guaranteed; if a business is going by the standard SLA of 99.999% uptime, they can't afford to have to switch out services.
Thank's
Sonicwall had cellular failover 20 years ago, so I'm not clear where you got that information.
Wait, It's fully fortinet oriented review right ??
edit : I forget to read description :D
All Fortinet all the time! Back in the day I used to work with Sonicwall, so I feel a little bad beating up on them, but not much. If we re-wound the clock six years or so it would have been a much more even contest, but at this point Sonicwall is pretty far behind.
who the hell want to know sonic wall compare to fortinet
can you re-review this , do you feel the same? we currently use sonicwall and i pull my hair a lot , i cant even export IPs from one firewall to put into another firewall.. I use Untangle at home and love it.. looking at pfsense but it makes NO SENSE! I would like to see a more apples to apple compare like sonicwall can do IPsec site to site linking many subnets (Site A) to one subnet (site B) or even many to many.. untangle could only talk to one subnet when creating ipsec to sonicwall, i blame this on sonicwall doing some magic in the background beyound the IPSEC standards.
My Sonicwall experience hits a wall (ha!) about two years ago, I keep tabs on lines and features but not so much implementation. I have a friend who does mostly Sonicwall, I'll check with him and see if we can get something together.
SD-WAN: "Sonicwall is not even a player!"
So you are judging a mid-tier baseball team on their ability to play football? K.
It's like judging fish by their ability to climb a tree.
Also a BIG glaring oversite:
Sonicwall SoHo base unit - $250.
Fortigate FN-40F: $300
Sonicwall w/ the 3 years advanced: $500
Fort-gate w/ the 1 year protection: $1k.
Apples to Oranges, bud.
@@ScottBoydathome I agree with you, but there is a substantial chunk of the SMB/small enterprise cybersecurity market that thinks it is an apples to apples comparison. Hopefully that's dispelled.
I have tried SonicWALL's SD-WAN and its not all that , once you use a interface for SD-WAN you are done.. it can no longer be used for anything else.
so you best have plenty of spare ports on your SonicWALL if you want to use SD-WAN , and if you have a small TZ in a remote site that don't fair well.