Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Arcserve UDP vs OpenText Recover​ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Arcserve UDP
Ranking in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software
16th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
43
Ranking in other categories
Backup and Recovery (24th)
OpenText Recover​
Ranking in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software
26th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the Disaster Recovery (DR) Software category, the mindshare of Arcserve UDP is 2.2%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Recover​ is 0.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Disaster Recovery (DR) Software Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Arcserve UDP2.2%
OpenText Recover​0.3%
Other97.5%
Disaster Recovery (DR) Software
 

Featured Reviews

TeresitaSabile - PeerSpot reviewer
Cost savings and efficient decompression but needs better cloud integration
Our primary use case for Arcserve UDP is its decompression feature, which helped us save money by reducing storage needs. Despite moving to cloud applications, we have been using Arcserve UDP for backup and disaster recovery Arcserve UDP has helped our organization save considerable amounts of…
Rias Majeed - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows you to test and schedule recovery tasks for multiple sites
The main weakness of Carbonite Recover is the fallback process, which can be time-consuming. However, the failover process works well when done properly. Similar to other software programs, there was a technical issue involving duplicates and small glitches. Over time, Carbonite recovery has improved. When I started working with Cyber, we had to double-check everything, and although it was challenging, the downtime wasn't extensive—one incident in a year, for example. Restoring data with Carbonite Recover can take time, mainly because the backup process occurs in real time. The main concern is the duration needed to restore data to the primary environment, which can be lengthy. However, once the failover is complete, there are no further issues.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The interface is very refined, works fine, and is very intuitive most of the time. Scalability is nice. The multi-tenancy feature is very welcome. The integration with Linux works fine too."
"The data protection functionality is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"One of the things that I do like about it is that it has a very good deduplication feature."
"The most valuable feature of Arcserve UDP is its decompression capability."
"The most valuable features are that it is able to restore quickly and that it is able to virtually restore on Hyper-V."
"The standard backup and restore feature is most used."
"The ease of use is the best feature of the product."
"Our customers are happy with the product’s functionality."
"We confirm the server failure before initiating recovery. Once started, this process takes half an hour to an hour, though it can be as fast as 15 minutes. After bringing up the server, we test connectivity to ensure everything is operational."
 

Cons

"We could not go into granular details of retrieving backup information."
"The time to backup servers that sit in DMZ must be improved."
"The only problem with the solution is that when I change the drive capacity, it has to do a full backup. It's a problem when I have five servers to backup. When I only want to change the size of the drive, I have to do a full backup that can take one week."
"It takes much time to verify and consolidate images for backups."
"Its interface can be improved. I find it unintuitive."
"The speed of restores should be improved. We have found the speed of large restores rather slow."
"One of the biggest drawbacks of Arcserve UDP is that it does not have a single console, making it an area that needs to be considered for improvement."
"Arcserve UDP is in the middle range of complexity. The interface can be developed a little bit more to be user-friendly."
"The main weakness of Carbonite Recover is the fallback process, which can be time-consuming. However, the failover process works well when done properly. Similar to other software programs, there was a technical issue involving duplicates and small glitches."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is approximately $400 to purchase a virtual service outright."
"In comparison to other vendors, it is a low-cost solution."
"The solution is not very expensive, but it is not cheap."
"Its price seems reasonable. Its price is average as compared to the other products I've looked at. We have a three-year license right now. There are no other costs beyond the standard licensing fee."
"Normally our customers purchase the premium plus license, rather than the standard one, which provides more options."
"Pricing is most likely comparable."
"It is a bit pricey, considering the reliability problems. If the tool worked flawlessly, the price would be fair, even cheap."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a four or five out of ten."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions are best for your needs.
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Non Profit
13%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise10
Large Enterprise9
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Major Differences Between These 4 Backup and Disaster Recovery Solutions?
Comparing the features of the four is not the right approach. You need to develop a list of requirements for backup and DR that are specific to your organization and then compare each of the four ...
What do you like most about StorageCraft ShadowProtect?
The interface is very refined, works fine, and is very intuitive most of the time. Scalability is nice. The multi-tenancy feature is very welcome. The integration with Linux works fine too.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for StorageCraft ShadowProtect?
Pricing for SPX MRP/MSP is under $400 per server (Single VM) with a 1-year subscription. After discounts, it could decrease by 20%-30%, and opting for a 3/5/10 server pack may offer even better (lo...
What needs improvement with Carbonite Recover?
The main weakness of Carbonite Recover is the fallback process, which can be time-consuming. However, the failover process works well when done properly. Similar to other software programs, there w...
What is your primary use case for Carbonite Recover?
Carbonite Recover is an effective tool for testing and scheduling recovery tasks for multiple sites, whether they have primary servers or virtual machines. You can schedule jobs for recovery at the...
What advice do you have for others considering Carbonite Recover?
Carbonite Recover is a downtime reduction solution that minimizes the time employees cannot work. Carbonite Recover can accurately measure how much potential productivity or revenue is saved per ho...
 

Also Known As

StorageCraft ShadowProtect, StorageCraft Backup Analyzer
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ITPS, North Hertfordshire Homes, SEMIKRON, Kajaani University of Applied Sciences, Test Valley Borough Council, EK Services
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Veeam Software, Commvault and others in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software. Updated: September 2025.
867,445 professionals have used our research since 2012.