We performed a comparison between Cohesity DataProtect 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."It's stable."
"The product is easy to put in place. All backups are done very quickly. It's easy to perform restores. What I prefer in the product is its simplicity. There are no useless settings to define, and everything is ready after the initial setup."
"The ease of use and the GUI have really been most valuable to us. Configuring the system to do what we need is simple and straight forward and a lot of guesswork has been removed. One of my favorite features with Cohesity is Kroll for Exchange item-level recovery. The software is simple to use and fast."
"It has a lightning fast restore."
"Cohesity has very simple reports to help you stay in the know of which servers are being backed up or not."
"It works well with backup virtual machines and SQL services we have been using."
"The restores are easy to do and have made it so that we can incorporate restores into our troubleshooting processes."
"Instead of four different solutions for protecting VMs, physical servers, SQL, and NAS, we now have one solution with Cohesity that is lightning fast and has amazing features."
"The dashboards in Micro Focus Data Protector are very good. They are similar to the dashboards in Veeam Backup & Replication."
"Integration with HP storage is a very strong point for Micro Focus Data Protector. It is the best solution for general operations like backup and restore. Zero downtime backup (ZDB) is one very important feature, which is basically the integration with the storage array. It is a very strong feature. We're using storage with snapshots with this integration."
"I have used Micro Focus Data Protector for the file backup facilities. My primary use of the software is to backup file data."
"The solution is easy to use."
"It is very easy to use and the interaction with various systems is very handy."
"The initial setup is straightforward if you understand Data Protector."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"It is a traditional backup model. If you talk about file server and the official Windows database, it's a stable product."
"Features I would like to see include a more visible data lifecycle monitoring tab, and an easier to read backup status dashboard."
"We have had our share of minor bugs over the past two years and a few bigger ones."
"A little more documentation on standard faults would help, as new features are being released quite often."
"Their UI requires a manual refresh. It doesn't seem like it updates itself sometimes when you're moving from screens or waiting for a change to take effect, so you have to manually refresh."
"Add the ability to delete View Boxes and External Targets in the GUI."
"Better documentation is needed because the lack of information has necessitated having our team depend more heavily on Cohesity support."
"Physical RDMs on virtual machines could be a bit easier to configure and plan out."
"The tool could benefit from further improvements in AI features, particularly in areas such as a generative AI chat interface. This feature could help answer queries about the data being protected. One feature that would greatly improve our experience with the product is the ability to identify data redundancies through a central console. This feature would help us reduce storage costs by managing redundant data."
"This solution is not scalable."
"Micro Focus are improving Data Protector with every new version and since we began undergoing training with the latest version we have not faced any real challenges yet. However, their support does need to be improved, in my opinion. In certain critical cases that we've had, they did not provide a satisfactory level of support."
"We're not satisfied with the robustness and stability of the software since Micro Focus took it in-house. The GUI is one thing they could improve. It's still a bit archaic. Data Protector needs a more functional, user-friendly GUI."
"It would be ideal if they could improve their level of support."
"Other tools seem to be easier to use."
"Virtualization."
"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 GUI could be updated. The GUI hasn't changed since version 6. It's on version 10 now. The reporting could also be better. Also, while Data Protector is excellent for backing up physical hardware, it needs more features for backing up VM images because many environments use hypervisor."
Cohesity DataProtect is ranked 9th in Backup and Recovery with 67 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 23rd in Backup and Recovery with 99 reviews. Cohesity DataProtect is rated 9.0, while OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cohesity DataProtect writes "Easy to use, offers good scalability and responsive support ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". Cohesity DataProtect is most compared with Rubrik, Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and Veritas NetBackup, whereas OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, HPE StoreOnce and Symantec Data Loss Prevention. See our Cohesity DataProtect 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.
