IBM Tivoli CDP for Files vs StorageCraft ShadowXafe [EOL] comparison

"The restoration and infrastructure is extremely reliable."

"The most valuable feature is the backups."

"I like that they have some new devices that are simpler to use because they kind of tie right into the cloud."

"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."

"Their restoration protocols could be better. I pulled all my clients out of their cloud mostly because I wasn't confident that they could restore out of the cloud. This was backed up by friends who had been burned by stuff like that. We moved away because of the lack of resources to restore from a potential catastrophic failure. It's challenging, and in some cases, they couldn't do it because they didn't have enough resources. For example, if there was a major disaster, and everybody needed their images out of the cloud, they couldn't give them to everybody."

"StorageCraft ShadowXafe should improve the on-premises console management controls and protection and recovery."

"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."

"They are more expensive than some of the others out there. We have gone away from their cloud due to pricing."