We performed a comparison between Dell Avamar 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."I like Dell EMC Avamar's compression of data."
"So far, Avamar covers everything we want. We are replicating to other sites for disaster recovery, so it's working well for us."
"Avamar's source side deduplication is very strong, it can easily back up remote sites' data, and not much bandwidth is required on the Avamar side."
"Easy to configure and highly reliable for backup."
"The solution is very stable."
"We love the instant recovery functionality. It's very useful."
"Source based deduplication is the most attractive feature as it drastically reduces the backup window."
"The setup is very easy."
"I like that it supports HPE UNIX servers since many backup solutions do not - this is the main reason why we chose this solution."
"If you have an idea of what you are doing, it's very flexible and very stable."
"It's user-friendly and not overly complicated to configure."
"The installation was simple and provided an easy way to install even on Unix servers. It has excellent features like deduplication."
"The file system backup (by far, the most used) is the most valuable feature."
"The stability of the product seems to be quite good."
"The initial setup is straightforward if you understand Data Protector."
"The solution is easy to use."
"There also needs to be single sign-on support."
"If there is a need to move the data from one backup solution to another, it might be difficult since there is no option for a straightforward migration."
"The recovery is a bit slow."
"Its ability to back up very large objects can be improved. In terms of new features, they can include the ability to use cloud services, like S3, more natively."
"We have had a lot of problems with the Dell EMC Avamar solution. The snapshots are not being erased after backup."
"The solution should improve its tape-connectivity features."
"When you get down to doing certain things, such as somebody wants a particular file restored, the process by which you do that is stupid. You kind of have to know exactly where to look for in order to find it. Even on older backup products that I've used, I didn't have that kind of problem. If we were looking for a file with a particular kind of a name, the solution would find that file anywhere irrespective of where it resides within the backup system. So, we didn't have to know the name of the specific server, the specific timeframe, almost all the characters of the file name, and all kinds of data in order to find a file. In Avamar, we got to know these details. We've gone around and around with them on that, and their attitude seems to be that it is working just fine. There is nothing for them to improve. The organizational system of other products that I'm working with, such as Zerto and Cohesity, seems to be centered around the tasks that you would most commonly do and want to do, as opposed to we've laid it out in a really neat technical hierarchy."
"Some integrations are not in place, such as the email alerts, which are not compatible with Office 365 SMTP gateway."
"In general, you can say that Micro Focus Data Protector is behind in capabilities when compared with other backup solutions, such as Commvault, Symantec, NetBackup, but it is very strong for certain use cases such as array integration. We are using it in production even now. There should be some kind of cloud integration and archiving solutions. I think this is the area they need to focus on."
"Many of our users complain about the GUI. You still need to rely on the command line interface. Because it originated as a Unix system, Data Protector is still a command line-driven solution, which makes it seem rather dated compared to systems that are built around a GUI from day one. It doesn't affect the functionality, but some people don't find it user-friendly."
"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."
"VM backups needs to be improved. They need to make it similar to the way Veeam and Commvault are doing the virtual backups."
"The solution is not intuitive enough. I think they should work on the user experience and the graphical interface. These can be a lot better."
"If you compare the solution with the same specific features and enhancements on another solution, Data Protector is expensive. This is especially true when compared to, for example, Veeam."
"In terms of what can be improved, I would say integrations with MongoDB. We use MongoDB and we need to go to scripts to do backups. We need more integrations."
"People prefer Veeam because the interface is easier, and Data Protector is difficult in comparison."
Dell Avamar is ranked 12th in Backup and Recovery with 81 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 23rd in Backup and Recovery with 99 reviews. Dell Avamar is rated 7.6, while OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Dell Avamar writes "Stable, integrates well with other solutions, and has a good price, but its UI needs a refresh". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". Dell Avamar is most compared with Dell PowerProtect Data Manager, Veeam Backup & Replication, Dell NetWorker, Dell PowerProtect DP (IDPA) and Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), whereas OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, HPE StoreOnce and Symantec Data Loss Prevention. See our Dell Avamar 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.