Carbonite Server vs Zerto comparison

"The efficiency and convenience are excellent."

"The solution is very stable."

"It seems reliable and easy to use."

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

"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."

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

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

"The solution is a free engine to help work with the container."

"The migration and ease of use are valuable. It is easy to set up and easy to flip. We just need to click on Move."

"It provides real-time backup"

"It is pretty easy to use. The interface is intuitive and easy to use. Once you set it up, it just works. So, it is great."

"Zerto offers a much better user experience and has reduced our disaster recovery time by at least fifty percent."

"Failover using Zerto is simply a one-button click, and it does everything else in restoring the VMs at a different datacenter (recovery site)."

"I found the very easy VPG setup, the easy recovery, and failover testing to be the most valuable features."

"We can recover both systems on-premises and in the public cloud."

"The ease of use is one of the best features. Previously, we were using Site Replication Manager with VMware and it was a little bit cumbersome. With Zerto, we liked the fact that it was hardware-agnostic and we were able to spin it up pretty quickly and get it working."

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

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

"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."

"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 Hyper-V backup has room for improvement."

"The stability has room for improvement."

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

"The performance was generally good, but occasional lag disrupted the flow, leaving room for improvement."

"The recovery processes of large datasets in the Cloud have room for improvement."

"It would be helpful if the reports can be generated periodically, on a schedule."

"Better alerting is something that I feel is critical."

"The main issue with Zerto is its user interface, which lacks flexibility and presents a steep learning curve."

"I want Zerto to add support for Proxmox."

"I would like Zerto to enhance the continuous backup aspect."

"The technical support response time has room for improvement."

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

"Its price is reasonable."

"The solution is open source."

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

"The product's pricing is the one area where it is less competitive."

"We believe the pricing, setup costs, and licensing are easy to understand. The pricing seems very reasonable."

"Zerto is priced high."

"It is not cheap, but it is reasonable for what it is offering. It gives me the peace of mind that my data is protected. It is worth the cost."

"It was a little higher. We were in a corporate agreement, and we had a software package that included RP for VM. It is easy to compare pricing when you are already in a corporate agreement. Zerto lost on the pricing scorecard."

"They should adjust the pricing because I feel its price is too much. If they reduce the price, there will be more users and customers."

"Its price is reasonable. I have not worked with other tools, but as compared to its competitors such as VMware, its price is lower. So, in my opinion, its price is good."

"I am not very involved with the pricing, but from my understanding, it is fairly expensive for us. This is why we limit its use to our tier-one customers. We have other disaster recovery solutions for our other customers due to the cost."