Bacula Enterprise vs OpenText Data Protector comparison

Bacula Systems and OpenText are both solutions in the Backup and Recovery category. Bacula Systems is ranked #24 with an average rating of 10.0, while OpenText is ranked #22 with an average rating of 9.0. Bacula Systems holds a 1.1% mindshare in BRS, compared to OpenText’s 1.0% mindshare. Additionally, 90% of Bacula Systems users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Bacula Enterprise

Read 10 Bacula Enterprise reviews

3,340 Views
1,904 Comparison Views

90% willing to recommend

OpenText Data Protector

Read 102 OpenText Data Protector reviews

3,326 Views
3,060 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

Bacula Enterprise

OpenText Data Protector

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

OpenText Data Protector and Bacula Enterprise are two data protection solutions with different strengths and user experiences. Bacula Enterprise seems to have the upper hand in versatility and cost-efficiency, while OpenText Data Protector excels in user-friendliness and consistent performance.

Features: OpenText Data Protector is highly regarded for its automated backup schedules, robust security features, and efficient data recovery. Bacula Enterprise stands out for its flexibility, compatibility with a wide range of systems, and extensive customization options.

Room for Improvement: Users of OpenText Data Protector often cite the need for a more intuitive troubleshooting process, faster updates, and a more refined user interface. Bacula Enterprise users seek enhanced documentation, a more streamlined setup process, and improved user interface design.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: OpenText Data Protector offers a straightforward deployment model that users find convenient, and they note the responsive customer service. Bacula Enterprise’s deployment is seen as more complex, though it allows broader system integration. Bacula’s customer service is helpful but occasionally slow to respond.

Pricing and ROI: OpenText Data Protector users often mention that the pricing is on the higher side but justified by its reliable performance, leading to good ROI. Bacula Enterprise users highlight its cost-effectiveness, especially for larger-scale implementations, and feel they get substantial ROI through its flexible licensing.

To learn more, read our detailed Bacula Enterprise vs. OpenText Data Protector Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Bacula Enterprise vs. OpenText Data Protector

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 884,873 peers since 2012

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

Bacula Enterprise

Ranking in Backup and Recovery

24th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Cloud Backup (16th)

OpenText Data Protector

Ranking in Backup and Recovery

22nd

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

5.8

Number of Reviews

102

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Backup and Recovery category, the mindshare of Bacula Enterprise is 1.1%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Data Protector is 1.0%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Backup and Recovery Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
OpenText Data Protector	1.0%
Bacula Enterprise	1.1%
Other	97.9%

Backup and Recovery

Featured Reviews

Davilson Aguiar

Analista Tecnologia Banco de Dados at Centro de Gestão da Tecnologia da Informação

Very cost-effective and well organized with good compression

It could improve its interface or offer a specific screen for the manager of the company. A managerial user who wants more information beyond the operational technician should be able to access it. It could include greater transparency regarding the volume of data trafficked on the network, as well as the expectation of deduplication. A more practical strategy could come with a backup policy model as a suggestion for both large and small companies. A simple suggestion is to visually implement the backup time as far as your physical media.

Read full review

Ahmad-Hassan

Project Manager And Technical Consultant at EEMC

Provides effective backup for physical servers and needs improvements for cloud compatibility

We use OpenText Data Protector for Oracle database backup and some applications that run for database security OpenText Data Protector is good for physical backup, specifically for physical servers. It is effective for direct backups to EMC library or storage without using a repository. However,…

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It brought many advantages - such as the learning curve being very light."

"It works great and it provides you with several standard tools to restore your backup, even after a big failure."

"It is easy to scale Bacula Enterprise even if your system is growing tremendously in data and servers."

"The most valuable features are the special plugins such as SAP HANA databases, Microsoft SQL, and various types of virtualization."

"Bacula is pretty stable."

"The solution has extensive documentation and a very active community."

"It can be used in virtually any environment we have onsite."

"Bacula is very solid, very stable, and very scalable."

"Performs the backup properly and protects our data."

"I haven't experienced any crashes while using the solution...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."

"The most valuable feature is the capability to back up our SQL server."

"Our complete Data Centre HP Data Protector deployment was AU$46,000."

"The installation was simple and provided an easy way to install even on Unix servers. It has excellent features like deduplication."

"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."

"The main purpose of this software suite (safely backup and restore main systems) is fully achieved."

"The database it provides is the most valuable feature for us."

More OpenText Data Protector pros

Cons

"Easier setup and configuration, perhaps including a GUI, would be an improvement."

"We would like to see an improvement in the functionality of the GUI."

"It could improve its interface or offer a specific screen for the manager of the company."

"We are looking for a unique interface that can rule both enterprise and open source editions. Such a thing does not yet exist."

"The initial setup could be a bit easier."

"Many features have been converted to commercial licensing, which restricts their availability."

"Bacula needs a graphical user interface because, for administrators, the command-line interface is okay, but for the average user it is not very easy."

"A more user-friendly interface (GUI) can be developed."

"The technical support is poor and should be improved."

"The scheduler setup could be better. We are facing some issues scheduling the job based on our requirements."

"Data Protector's main single point of weakness is its GUI."

"It can occasionally be inaccurate in its backup/recovery time estimates."

"I do not think that this solution is relevant in the current IT market. They have not upgraded their features and functionalities which makes it difficult for them to remain competitive."

"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."

"VM backups needs to be improved. They need to make it similar to the way Veeam and Commvault are doing the virtual backups."

"I don't like this solution so much because it's very technical and compared to Commvault and Veeam, it's not so user-friendly. The interface needs improvement."

More OpenText Data Protector cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"This is an open-source solution."

"We have a perpetual license."

"The licensing structure provides cost savings to business."

"The pricing is neither too expensive nor very cheap."

"The licensing cost was not annual. We didn't pay any license. We paid when we deployed and we didn't pay for anything after that. There were no additional fees after the initial payment."

"The pricing is acceptable for enterprise level companies, but it's not acceptable for small- and medium-sized businesses. Micro Focus Data Protector is not an enterprise level solution, and it should cover small- and medium-sized businesses with acceptable prices."

"Our licensing is on a capacity basis."

"The licensing cost is too high."

"It is fast, reliable, and its licensing policy is great."

"The product is cheaper than Commvault."

More OpenText Data Protector pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Backup and Recovery solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

11%

University

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Marketing Services Firm

13%

Performing Arts

Manufacturing Company

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	4

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	28
Midsize Enterprise	22
Large Enterprise	61

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Bacula Enterprise?

Bacula is more expensive than various other solutions. It’s almost completely commercial now. Products like Veeam software are much more expensive.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Bacula Enterprise?

Many features have been converted to commercial licensing, which restricts their availability.

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Bacula Enterprise?

The last scenario in which I used Bacula was for a customer who needed some open-source tool which could support encryption at that time. We managed to convince the customer to use Bacula to deploy...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Data Protector?

The solution is expensive as it requires purchasing all features without the option to negotiate based on client numbers, unlike Veeam which offers flexibility in pricing.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Data Protector?

OpenText Data Protector is not user-friendly, especially for cloud backup. It lacks functions and facilities compared to Veeam, which offers more user-friendliness for virtual machine backups. Ther...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Micro Focus Data Protector?

We use OpenText Data Protector ( /products/opentext-data-protector-reviews ) for Oracle database backup and some applications that run for database security.

See all answers

Comparisons

Bareos vs Bacula Enterprise

Compared 19% of the time

Veeam Data Platform vs Bacula Enterprise

Compared 8% of the time

UrBackup vs Bacula Enterprise

Compared 6% of the time

QNAP Backup Solution vs Bacula Enterprise

Compared 5% of the time

Dell PowerProtect Data Domain vs Bacula Enterprise

Compared 4% of the time

More Bacula Enterprise Competitors

Veeam Data Platform vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 10% of the time

Commvault Cloud vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 5% of the time

Symantec Data Loss Prevention vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 4% of the time

Dell Data Protection Advisor vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 3% of the time

Veritas NetBackup vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 3% of the time

More OpenText Data Protector Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Backup and Recovery

February 2026

Download Bacula Enterprise product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Data Protector

March 2026

Download OpenText Data Protector product report

Also Known As

No data available

Micro Focus Data Protector, Data Protector, OmniBack, HPE Data Protector

Overview

Bacula Enterprise is a highly scalable, especially robust and secure data backup and recovery software. Its unique low cost subscription model empowers data centers to truly escape data volume price traps. With a high degree of flexibility and customizability, Bacula offers native integration with a wide range of hypervisors, databases, file systems, cloud interfaces and containers. High numbers of enterprise organizations worldwide (incl. NASA, Bank of Austria, Swisscom or Sky PLC) have adopted Bacula Enterprise backup software in mission critical environments because of its advanced features and ability to handle high data volume at very low cost.

Bacula Systems

OpenText Data Protector standardizes and consolidates backups across multiple platforms. It provides secure, comprehensive backup protection for business-critical data and applications whether virtual, physical, or online in the cloud.

OpenText

Sample Customers

NASA, SwissCom, Navisite, Turner Studios, Bank Austria, Caixa Bank, SdV Plurimedia, Leibniz University Hannover, Zeta Global, Tricore, NetLog, Siemens, LocaWeb, wbsGo, itesys, Queens School of Computing, Escrypt.

GSK Vaccines, Repsol, Vodafone Group, Siemens AG, Medium Enterprise Transportation Services Company

Buyer's Guide

Bacula Enterprise vs. OpenText Data Protector

March 2026

Free Report: Bacula Enterprise vs. OpenText Data Protector

Find out what your peers are saying about Bacula Enterprise vs. OpenText Data Protector and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

884,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Bacula Enterprise 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.