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

IBM Tivoli CDP for Files vs NetApp V-Series [EOL] 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

IBM Tivoli CDP for Files
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Backup and Recovery (80th)
NetApp V-Series [EOL]
Average Rating
8.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1035033 - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr. Aix Admin at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Restoration and infrastructure are extremely reliable
We are currently using Tivoli to backup 15 terabytes within our Oracle Database using a RMAN backup script. The RMAN's utility and restoration has been perfect, we have yet to experience any issues. It's very reliable The restoration and infrastructure are extremely reliable. We would like to…
it_user487899 - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Administrator at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
Flexible, allowing us to provide NAS and SAN solutions with the same hardware
According to my experience, for certain HPC environments, we encounter certain Memory/CPU limitations when we have a large number of IOPS. This is why, in order to support such loads, several cabs are required in parallel, complicating the configuration and administration. Another handicap is the management of the LACP that, when we are talking about environments with less than 20 calculation nodes, may not balance correctly despite setting the RR option.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Even though a lot of other people like Veeam, Tivoli's restoration and infrastructure are unbeatable, making them the only ones that we rely on despite other feasible options."
"The restoration and infrastructure is extremely reliable."
"You have the ability to connect a third-party storage back end, EMC VMAX in our case, and have all NetApp functionalities available."
"We are very happy with this solution as it brings us the scalability and stability of Data Ontap and the versatility of NetApp solutions in order to provide different types of services for our customers' requirements (NAS, CIFS, FC / FCoE)."
 

Cons

"We rarely need to reach out to customer service; however, when we do, they have not been able to help us resolve a single call."
"We would like to have the opportunity to omit data from being backed up. For example, we have three virtual machines, each with three disks. When running the backup, it will automatically take each disk rather than allowing us to select what data we want backed."
"According to my experience, for certain HPC environments, we encounter certain Memory/CPU limitations when we have a large number of IOPS."
"We have had some performance issues."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's expensive, but it's worth for it due to the volume of critical information within our database. We are currently paying about $22,000 per year."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Backup and Recovery solutions are best for your needs.
913,422 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Healthcare Company
10%
Retailer
10%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

Tivoli CDP for Files
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Cyberian Data Protection
City of Houston, Health Choice Network, SVC Bank, Plex Systems, Larsen & Toubro, IWD, JCVI
Find out what your peers are saying about Veeam Software, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Rubrik and others in Backup and Recovery. Updated: August 2026.
913,422 professionals have used our research since 2012.