No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Dell Avamar vs Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Dell Avamar
Ranking in Backup and Recovery
24th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
90
Ranking in other categories
Deduplication Software (7th)
Nimesa Backup and Recovery ...
Ranking in Backup and Recovery
43rd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (25th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Backup and Recovery category, the mindshare of Dell Avamar is 1.9%, down from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS is 0.3%. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Backup and Recovery Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Dell Avamar1.9%
Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS0.3%
Other97.8%
Backup and Recovery
 

Featured Reviews

SamuelThomas - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at Key Information Technology L.L.C.
Have supported critical environments despite room for improvement in legacy backup options
It is very efficient in cyber resilience. Deduplication, automation, and everything is very efficient. It is multi-cloud enabled and has broad protections. The software delivers flexible and efficient backup and recovery options through its cyber resiliency features. Dell PowerProtect Manager provides insights in managing backup processes. Its encryption mechanisms are very efficient, helping to secure sensitive data. Its integration with Dell EMC Data Domain is very good. It is easy to integrate with Data Domain. Multi-cloud options are enabled, and backup in cloud options exist in Dell Avamar.
George Onalo - PeerSpot reviewer
Enterprise DevOps Lead at a consultancy with 11-50 employees
Automated disaster recovery has cut manual work and now protects cross‑region workloads confidently
There are three major areas where Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS can be improved: infrastructure as code integration, predictive AI analytics, and data compression. Currently, we construct our automated landing zones using IaC, but we still have to jump into Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS UI afterwards to manually configure the application backup groups and policies. Being able to declare all our backup schedules directly inside our Terraform code would streamline our automation pipelines massively. In terms of predictive AI reporting, it needs to be more reliable. While it executes scheduled backups perfectly, it lacks proactive anomaly detection. We want the AI agent to accurately predict and flag a potential backup failure or snapshot timeout before the job actually triggers and fails. This would save our DevOps team tons of triage time.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Both backup and recovery work well for all three types of data."
"Client deduplication."
"The most valuable features are image backups and file backups."
"The backup and recovery speed is very fast."
"The installation process is pretty straightforward."
"We have a lot of backups, and this tool helps us with the RMAN Backup."
"The most valuable feature for me is the backup functionality; it gives large enterprises the comfort of knowing their workloads are being backed up."
"Overall, this is a good product."
"Previously, if we had any disaster or any issue, it would take days to bring the environment back up to the original state, and with Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS, we can do that within a couple of hours, which greatly reduces downtime in the case of disaster recovery."
"As an Advanced Tier Partner, Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS has had a major positive impact on our delivery velocity and engineering efficiency."
"Overall, these features make day-to-day backup operations more structured, reduce operational overhead, and improve confidence around recovery preparedness and cloud resilience."
"Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS helped us automate backup scheduling and policy management, gave us centralized visibility with a dashboard across AWS workloads of multiple accounts, helped us with a faster recovery process, and majorly reduced our operational overhead while improving our ransomware and data protection."
 

Cons

"The product could be improved by simplifying the components available."
"EMC has discontinued their Avamar hardware version. They only advertise the Avamar virtual edition."
"What would make Dell Avamar better is if it can do faster backups because right now, PowerProtect Data Manager is better in this area with its new UI and a new way to implement backups."
"When we used the solution, it was still new, and so the customer service/technical support was not the best."
"More integration would be helpful, as well as the addition of more applications."
"The user interface still needs to have some level of improvement. It could be more user-friendly and intuitive."
"The UI is not easy to use. There are other products such as Veeam that are easy to use for the end-user which is why they are moving away from Avamar or Networker."
"The solution could be a bit easier to use in the sense that they need to make it simpler to backup products and restore items."
"Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS has a fairly small market presence."
"Regarding customer support, as this is a very new product and relatively new in the market, I am not sure how long they have been around, but there seems to be a lack of understanding with the support team."
"Customer support is fair and okay, though it could be better."
"One area where Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS could improve is expanding advanced analytics and predictive monitoring capabilities, especially for identifying backup risks, storage optimization opportunities, and recovery readiness trends more proactively."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Its price should be reduced. It would be good if you could pay as per usage, and there is a subscription model like VMware. There should be some flexibility because sometimes, the customer only uses the backup for one month or three months. Currently, I have to pay whether I use it or not. Its licensing should be flexible and based on consumption."
"There is a license required for this solution."
"This solution is less expensive than Veeam for us, although it depends on the customer because we get a great discount."
"It is expensive. Its cost is the main thing."
"It is very expensive. It's a trust based licensing. So that's an ethical challenge."
"Licensing was generally on a per VM or terabyte basis. They changed their licensing model a couple of times and turned it into socket-based licensing, which is an improvement in their licensing model."
"The solution is expensive."
"Its licensing is weird. It is not just the licenses; we also purchase hardware. With most software products, such as Veeam, Commvault, and Data Protector, there is no hardware purchase at the same time. Because Avamar and Data Domain are tied together, they have an integrated pipe. You can separate them, but basically, they're designed to work as a couple. Because the Data Domain backend is designed to do dedupe and compression, we get 60:1. When you count it, you count it as a straight compression, but of course, that's with dedupe and some other stuff. You have to buy the hardware, the licensing, and the software at the same time. So, it's not just software."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Backup and Recovery solutions are best for your needs.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
12%
Construction Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Construction Company
42%
Comms Service Provider
20%
Outsourcing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise18
Large Enterprise47
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What's the difference between Dell EMC Avamar and Dell EMC NetWorker?
From the very beginning, Dell EMC NetWorker considers users and those who might potentially become users. In terms of both pricing and setup, this product offers an experience that is significantly...
What needs improvement with Dell Avamar?
It is a very good product. My only concern is that there is no tape backup. For tape backup, we have to use Dell NetWorker. They could add more features for cyber resilience and multi-cloud options...
What needs improvement with Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS?
There are three major areas where Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS can be improved: infrastructure as code integration, predictive AI analytics, and data compression. Currently, we construct our ...
What is your primary use case for Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS?
Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS automates application-centric disaster recovery and lifecycle snapshot management for enterprise clients that are migrating to AWS. We recently migrated a large r...
What advice do you have for others considering Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS?
I would rate Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS an eight out of ten. There is still room for improvement, but eight out of ten is a fair rating. I took off those two points primarily due to the inf...
 

Also Known As

Avamar
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Dodge County, St Laurence's College, FieldCore (a GE Company), Comanche County Memorial Hospital, Getronics, Lewisville Independent School District, EnvisionRxOptions, Cincinnati Bell Technology Solutions
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Avamar vs. Nimesa Backup and Recovery for AWS and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
915,341 professionals have used our research since 2012.