Carbonite Server vs IBM Spectrum Protect comparison

"It does not slow down your computer or use a lot of resources as it works."

"The solution is very stable."

"Easy verification of things is the most valuable feature."

"Technical support handled all our issues quickly and effectively."

"The efficiency and convenience are excellent."

"I find the BMR/image and the recovery pieces are valuable."

"The Granular Restore of SQL feature has been a lifesaver more times than I can count. One of the main reasons for looking at Carbonite was their support for platforms like AIX and AS/400 Series."

"It seems reliable and easy to use."

"IBM Spectrum Protect offers stable software and products."

"Good user interface."

"From a tech perspective, utilizing deduplication is one of the most valuable features."

"It scales well. We have grown here in the last year or two, and it has been relatively easy."

"Good deduplication and compression features."

"A robust tool which allows us to backup pretty much any environment, virtual or physical."

"Scalability, performance, mass platform coverage. It's one of the few backup products on the market right now which an organization can bring in and it will serve all of their backup needs. It's a completely centralized solution."

"I find the whole product useful. The backup archive client, snapshot, spectrum for virtual environments are beneficial features."

"It could be a little bit easier or faster to be able to access data files without having to download anything."

"They do not yet have USB recovery but they are adding it in coming releases."

"The Hyper-V backup has room for improvement."

"In the next release I would like to see an improvement in the auto failover option."

"The support for object storage isn't quite there yet. Its public cloud support can be improved. I would love to see the public cloud support for object storage, and it would be great, but what I always hear from the folks at Carbonite is that in a lot of cases, it directly competes with their cloud offering. So, I don't know when or where that will go or if that will go anywhere, but we are hopeful to see something. The dashboard is a little outdated. If they gave it a facelift and put some better design around their dashboard, that would be tremendous. I generally care less about the visual aesthetics of an application as long as it does what it needed to do, which is true in the case of this solution. We also have the Microsoft 365 platform. Because they're two separate platforms, I have to log in to my Microsoft platform to manage it, and I have to log into my Carbonite server backup platform to manage it. Having these two coexist together in one management console is really what we're looking for, but we went for it knowing this. We also knew that there would be some integration coming down the road. So, we're again hoping to see some of that coming in 2021."

"The stability has room for improvement."

"The only thing that I would like to see improved is related to marketing. Currently, it is very difficult to find the right paper and stuff for me. Their marketing department should provide better information because currently, it is very difficult to find information on the internet. It was bought over by OpenText, and you won't be able to find a lot of information about this solution on their site. They should also provide training facilities for commercial purposes. Some of my colleagues recently went for pilot training, and they were technical. If I want to get trained, the training has to be more commercial. Currently, there is no such training for users like me."

"They should introduce more features for virtualization platforms and backing up IBMs. Backup speeds should also be improved."

"I need to have more than two instances working together. I need a worldwide grid able to have replication between three, four, or five instances."

"The solution is evolving, so it has to be evolved to fit all new types of software requirements too."

"I would like to see more technical training online. Sometimes, it is a little bit difficult to find, or that I do not really know what I am looking for as somebody who is starting off finding their learning curve."

"The most important feature which I wish to be added involves the GUI, the user interface."

"It needs some software upgrades to fix some of its current bugs."

"The interface could be more user-friendly."

"It is not easy to manage like other products in the market. It is okay only if you are command-line driven. Even though the operation center is there, it doesn't provide a single view of everything. You have to, for example, use TSMManager on top of it, which gives you a far better management capability, but it is a third-party product. Its management needs to be improved. There should be an HTML or graphical interface. It is a very difficult product. For example, you have a backup policy where you want a daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly policy standard. It is an old kind of system where you have to keep retention for daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly backups, which is very difficult in IBM Spectrum Protect. In other products, in a matter of five minutes, you can configure such a policy. In TSM, it takes you one, two, or three days because you need to configure a node for each of them. If you have 250 nodes, you have to configure each node for daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly retention. If you have 1,000 nodes, it is going to take you ages just to configure and register the nodes. You need to configure the schedule and the CAD daemons or services, depending on whether it is a Unix or Windows OS. Unfortunately, it is a very long and drawn-out process. You have to stop and start the services for changes to take effect. This is a very difficult part of TSM in IBM Spectrum Protect. To configure a backup policy, I should be able to select the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly options in one screen and finish it. After that, everything should happen in the background. All the backup products in the market already do that, and they are very simple to manage. This particular part of this solution has really been a major pain area for us, and unfortunately, we could not find a workaround. There is nobody at IBM who can give us a way to configure all this easily through a GUI or even scripts."

"Its price is reasonable."

"The pricing is between $120 and $150 per year."

"We pay 9,000 dollars per year for our license."

"The solution is open source."

"The solution is not cheap."

"It is really expensive. Its price is not good for Latin America. Its price is good for the United States or Europe."

"I don't have an idea about the pricing. They send that over to someone else, but I know that one of the issues they had was the licensing costs. I don't think they were happy with how they were charged."

"Licensing can be either complicated or simple depending on what type of licensing you wish to use and what works best for your environment."

"The different license models can give good benefits to the end customer."

"The price of IBM Spectrum Protect is expensive. However, there are a few packages and it is unclear because, for the entry suite they have both options, which are the back-end storage capacity and the front-end storage capacity."

"We are paying for support and maintenance on a monthly basis."

"For my company, the tool is affordable and reasonable...I don't think most people know that when a company has large systems in place, the TCO is a lot lower."