We performed a comparison between AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and OpenText Data Protector based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Backup and Recovery solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Technical support has been very good. They usually respond quickly to our requests."
"The solution is dependent on the network bandwidth. For example, if they have a bandwidth of 10Mbps the solution will run a little heavier. If the bandwidth is good the solution runs well."
"We went from an organization with minimal to no disaster recovery. I was able to spin up the disaster recovery environment with AWS rather quickly and meet business requirements."
"For regular backup and restore solutions, this product is fine."
"It provides our disaster recovery solution. It works fine in our tests."
"The most valuable aspect of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is its instant block replication feature. This allows us to perform live block verification and eliminates the need to concern ourselves with recovery point objectives. This capability is particularly advantageous for critical workloads."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward, it's not complex."
"We have never had any issues with scalability."
"It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten...The initial setup process for the solution is easy."
"It works excellently only with Oracle."
"The file system backup (by far, the most used) is the most valuable feature."
"Data Protector is quite simple and easy to deploy. The deployment is always the same. It's on a server, and the agents are deployed to the machines in a straightforward way. We have two engineers who deploy and manage all our backup solutions."
"The installation was simple and provided an easy way to install even on Unix servers. It has excellent features like deduplication."
"It is very easy to use and the interaction with various systems is very handy."
"Data Protector's granular recovery features make it easy for us to create and restore backups in an understandable and user-friendly manner. With granular recovery, any database or even just a database table can be restored at will."
"The reliability of HP Data Protector is the most valuable feature for us."
"The failback could be improved. It should be more intuitive."
"I would like to see better support for creating and working with archives."
"The only thing I would like to see is, they don't have a formal ticketing system. There is no way I can go back and see what questions we had six months back, what issues we had, and how they were resolved."
"Definitely there should be better logging. From a customer perspective I would like to see more logs on what is happening. If there is an issue, I would like to know what the problem is. Right now, we have to depend on the support of the vendor to check and let us know, because we don't have access to a lot of logging information."
"The solution's network setup and a lot of the control tower setup could be improved."
"I set up a test, deleted the source, and went to fail it back, and it didn't work."
"Sometimes a server will get a bit behind. "
"I have not seen any areas that need improvement at this time."
"Integration with the market applications must be improved, such as MS Exchange, MS Active Directory, SAP and Oracle. Other backup tools are more efficient with the integrated backups."
"We face challenges with its stability."
"We have so many specific technological cracks in Micro Focus, but we are not getting the features, facilities, or coordination between the global delivery centers and the R&D team that we need to express our ideas."
"The graphical interface needs to be improved."
"Micro Focus Data Protector must improve its overall evolution record. They need to focus on hardware based instant recovery, client recovery, and cloud ability. Now there is no cloud ability."
"The Micro Focus Data Protector support is not as good as Veeam Backup & Replication's support."
"I would like to see a better user interface in the next release."
"The product can be developed by including functionalities like DR, CDP, and SureBackup, which are currently unavailable in the solution."
More AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is ranked 33rd in Backup and Recovery with 11 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 99 reviews. AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is rated 7.4, while OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery writes "Free, easy to use, and offers good support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is most compared with Azure Site Recovery, AWS Backup, Oracle Data Guard, VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery and Zerto, whereas OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, HPE StoreOnce and Symantec Data Loss Prevention. See our AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs. OpenText Data Protector report.
See our list of best Backup and Recovery vendors.
We monitor all Backup and Recovery reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
