Mimecast Incydr vs OpenText Data Protector comparison

The compared Mimecast and OpenText solutions aren't in the same category. Mimecast is ranked #25 in DLP , with an average rating of 7.0, and holds a 2.0% mindshare in the category. OpenText is ranked #22 in BRS , with an average rating of 8.0, and holds a 0.7% mindshare. Additionally, 98% of Mimecast users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 80% of OpenText users who would recommend it.

Mimecast Incydr

Read 78 Mimecast Incydr reviews

848 Views
473 Comparison Views

98% willing to recommend

OpenText Data Protector

Read 102 OpenText Data Protector reviews

1,351 Views
692 Comparison Views

80% willing to recommend

Mimecast Incydr

OpenText Data Protector

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

Code42 Incydr and OpenText Data Protector are prominent solutions for data protection and insider threat detection. Users report greater satisfaction with Code42 Incydr's user experience, while OpenText Data Protector is favored for its expansive feature set.

Features: Code42 Incydr is praised for its real-time data monitoring, robust endpoint protection, and efficient user interface. OpenText Data Protector is known for its comprehensive backup and restore capabilities, versatile backup options, and extensive feature set that supports larger enterprises.

Room for Improvement: Code42 Incydr users highlight the need for more advanced reporting features, tighter integration with third-party solutions, and enhancements in customization options. OpenText Data Protector users express the desire for a more intuitive configuration process, faster update cycles, and simplification of its complex setup.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Code42 Incydr's deployment is generally reviewed as straightforward with efficient customer support. In contrast, OpenText Data Protector's deployment can be challenging, though their customer service is competent.

Pricing and ROI: Users find Code42 Incydr to offer good value for money with a favorable ROI. OpenText Data Protector is often considered pricier, but its extensive features justify the cost. Code42 Incydr is perceived as more cost-effective, while OpenText justifies its higher price with a broader feature set and higher ROI for larger enterprises.

To learn more, read our detailed Mimecast Incydr vs. OpenText Data Protector Report (Updated: April 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Mimecast Incydr vs. OpenText Data Protector

April 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 860,168 peers since 2012

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

Mimecast Incydr

Average Rating

9.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) (25th)

OpenText Data Protector

Average Rating

7.6

Reviews Sentiment

5.8

Number of Reviews

102

Ranking in other categories

Backup and Recovery (22nd)

Mindshare comparison

Mimecast Incydr and OpenText Data Protector aren’t in the same category and serve different purposes. Mimecast Incydr is designed for Data Loss Prevention (DLP) and holds a mindshare of 2.0%, up 1.5% compared to last year.
OpenText Data Protector, on the other hand, focuses on Backup and Recovery, holds 0.7% mindshare, up 0.6% since last year.

Data Loss Prevention (DLP)

Backup and Recovery

Featured Reviews

Chuck_Mackey

Director, Cybersecurity Consulting at a tech services company with 51-200 employees

Provides comprehensive visibility and protection, helps in identifying the gaps in security, and comes with excellent onboarding support

In a couple of instances, we had a little bit of trouble in getting it distributed throughout the organization. We ultimately managed to do it, but they talk about it being a pretty simple process, and it became a little laborious. It would just turn away. The agents were not being distributed. It was just churning and churning and churning. When we were looking for specific categories of data, it was getting bogged down, but that was not even so much Code42, although some of it was their issue. It really has to do with the overall infrastructure and what the organization is prepared to do. If the infrastructure or the networking is a little hinky or you don't have a really finely tuned network infrastructure environment and your patches aren't up to date on your servers and your endpoints, it could get a little sticky. Other than that, it was okay. We really didn't have much problem beyond that. It took a couple of days to sort that out, but it was no big deal.

Read full review

Jeroen Vranckaerts

System Engineer - Server & Storage, DBA at Audi Brussels

Though a highly stable tool, it needs to be made easier to use and configure

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a five out of ten. OpenText Data Protector is complex to configure correctly, but the areas concerning the data and compression are good. Once you get the product to work, it works, but it's much too complex to configure and troubleshoot, as it takes a lot of time and energy, making it not so efficient. Once the tool is configured in your environment, it provides good backup and compression features. In my company, we use OpenText Data Protector as a backup for our servers, and we have a team of 20 people to take care of the data backup using the tool. My company doesn't use OpenText Data Protector as a backup for our client's computers. In my company, we have scheduled the process related to backup, which makes the tool run daily around 30 to 40 times.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Backup and recovery have been great, but I love having the ability to keep the hybrid type build which they offer."

"Security tools: Being able to monitor data going in and coming off our endpoints. Seeing what it is and where it's going is awesome."

"It has quite a bit of flexibility in configuring backup sets."

"Code42 Next-Gen DLP is scalable."

"The solution is very stable. Very rarely do we have any issues with it. We don't have to deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We find it to be reliable."

"Works in the background and users are able to perform restores."

"t has a very user friendly status bar with common errors and has logs built in to the console so we can review the issues or status of CrashPlan."

"There are a couple of things. One of them is that they have what they call Incydr. Their detection and response solution to the insider threat area is called Incydr. That gives visibility to the clients that have widely dispersed employee bases due to work from home, or that had a dispersed workforce predating any of the work from home requirements. Even though they might not be inside the organization physically, they're inside the organization. It allows us to get some visibility into what people are doing, what the context is, and how to control what might be the potential for intellectual property theft or file exposure."

More Mimecast Incydr pros

"The solution is easy to use."

"The initial setup is straightforward if you understand Data Protector."

"The initial setup was relatively easy."

"I like that Micro Focus keeps a separate catalog of our data."

"I like that it supports HPE UNIX servers since many backup solutions do not - this is the main reason why we chose this solution."

"Data Protector is quite simple and easy to deploy. The deployment is always the same. It's on a server, and the agents are deployed to the machines in a straightforward way. We have two engineers who deploy and manage all our backup solutions."

"The reliability of HP Data Protector is the most valuable feature for us."

"It's a good product that's pretty easy to use."

More OpenText Data Protector pros

Cons

"Due to recent changes that effectively abandoned an entire segment of their user base, I no longer trust nor can recommend Code42 products."

"The application, written in Java, required far more system resources on a Client than other solutions."

"In a couple of instances, we had a little bit of trouble in getting it distributed throughout the organization. We ultimately managed to do it, but they talk about it being a pretty simple process, and it became a little laborious. It would just turn away. The agents were not being distributed. It was just churning and churning and churning. When we were looking for specific categories of data, it was getting bogged down, but that was not even so much Code42, although some of it was their issue."

"You can't always filter out data that you'd like to."

"I think one we can improve is the compression."

"Reporting could use an overhaul. It is very limited."

"I would like to see more flexibility on privileges, perhaps create another kind of admin for regions. Also, I would like the ability to access logs without having to be on the actual device or a super-admin."

"Java, please get rid of Java."

More Mimecast Incydr cons

"The scheduler setup could be better. We are facing some issues scheduling the job based on our requirements."

"I do not think that this solution is relevant in the current IT market. They have not upgraded their features and functionalities which makes it difficult for them to remain competitive."

"Recently, clients have raised concerns about the lack of comprehensive documentation for Data Protector."

"The challenge is that we can't restore a single file from the VM in the data process when we do VM backups. But with Commvault, you can restore a single file even if you have a VM snapshot package. That's one drawback of this tool. When we do VM backups, it should help us browse the VMs to restore a single file instead of doing the complete VM restore."

"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."

"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."

"This solution is not scalable."

More OpenText Data Protector cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It used to be a good solution for SOHO in particular as it had unlimited storage for a reasonable price. However, their pricing model has changed and they are now primarily targeting enterprise users."

"The pricing is reasonable. It's my understanding that the cost is about $7 for unlimited storage in the cloud per server."

"It was expensive. It was more expensive than Eureka, and it was more expensive than Barracuda Backup, but what we got was a full team. They didn't come in and nickel and dime us. They provided the assistance we needed. They didn't say that they need to charge us for something or it is going to take another statement of work. It was all bundled into it... We pay for the software maintenance. It is probably 18% or 20% of the license fee for rev releases."

"It is 100% worth the cost to get and keep the support, especially when setting it up."

"They were the best solution and surprisingly enough, the cheapest."

"Our licensing is on a capacity basis."

"Data Protector's pricing is very competitive and we have no issues in this regard. I would give it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."

"The pricing is around $3,000 to $5,000. The charge additionally for support and to scale."

"There is a perpetual license involved in addition to support which needs to be renewed annually."

"The licensing structure provides cost savings to business."

"The pricing is neither too expensive nor very cheap."

"The licensing cost was not annual. We didn't pay any license. We paid when we deployed and we didn't pay for anything after that. There were no additional fees after the initial payment."

"The license for the solution is very expensive compared to the other products in the market."

More OpenText Data Protector pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Loss Prevention (DLP) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Manufacturing Company

14%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Code42 Incydr?

Data Leakage Protection on large scale environments. This can be to protect against leakage on endpoints and servers that consist of highly classified or propriety information. It can be added on a...

See all answers

What do you like most about Micro Focus Data Protector?

I haven't experienced any crashes while using the solution...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Micro Focus Data Protector?

The solution is expensive as it requires purchasing all features without the option to negotiate based on client numbers, unlike Veeam which offers flexibility in pricing.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Micro Focus Data Protector?

OpenText Data Protector is not user-friendly, especially for cloud backup. It lacks functions and facilities compared to Veeam, which offers more user-friendliness for virtual machine backups. Ther...

See all answers

Comparisons

Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention vs Mimecast Incydr

Compared 14% of the time

Netskope Data Loss Prevention (DLP) vs Mimecast Incydr

Compared 11% of the time

Digital Guardian vs Mimecast Incydr

Compared 9% of the time

Symantec Data Loss Prevention vs Mimecast Incydr

Compared 8% of the time

Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention vs Mimecast Incydr

Compared 8% of the time

More Mimecast Incydr Competitors

Veeam Data Platform vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 52% of the time

Veritas NetBackup vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 12% of the time

Commvault Cloud vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 8% of the time

Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 6% of the time

IBM Tivoli CDP for Files vs OpenText Data Protector

Compared 6% of the time

More OpenText Data Protector Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Mimecast Incydr

June 2025

Download Mimecast Incydr product report

Buyer's Guide

OpenText Data Protector

June 2025

Download OpenText Data Protector product report

Also Known As

Code42 Next-Gen DLP, Code42 Next-Gen Data Loss Protection, Code42 Forensic File Search, Code42 Backup + Restore

Micro Focus Data Protector, Data Protector, OmniBack, HPE Data Protector

Overview

Mimecast Incydr offers a comprehensive data protection and recovery solution, ideal for organizations needing robust insider threat protection and regulatory compliance.

Mimecast Incydr provides a seamless experience across platforms with lightweight clients and centralized administration. It focuses on real-time monitoring, instant access to backups, strong encryption, and customizable risk scoring. This ensures data protection against insider threats while promoting ease of use and low system overhead. Although improvements are possible in areas like Java dependency reduction, GUI design, cloud storage integration, and comprehensive reporting, Mimecast Incydr remains valuable for data classification, legal discovery, and identity management, especially for large environments handling classified information.

What key features does Mimecast Incydr offer?

Lightweight Clients: Ensures minimal system impact
Version Backups: Keeps data secure with historical availability
Seamless Data Recovery: Provides instant access to critical data
Multi-Platform Compatibility: Operates across diverse systems
Strong Encryption: Protects sensitive information
Customizable Risk Scoring: Tailors threat assessment to needs
Flexible Storage Options: Supports continuous backup capabilities

What benefits or ROI should be considered?

Ease of Use: Simplifies deployment and management
Regulatory Compliance: Aids adherence to industry standards
Centralized Administration: Streamlines management processes
Low System Overhead: Minimizes resource consumption
Real-Time Monitoring: Facilitates prompt threat response

Mimecast Incydr is leveraged across industries for data leakage protection and egress solution integration. It supports HIPAA-compliant backups and peer-to-peer data management, proving invaluable for corporate data protection and traveling employees facing data loss risks. Its application in legal data discovery and disaster recovery planning enhances its relevance for IT administrators and compliance officers managing data-intensive operations.

Mimecast

OpenText Data Protector standardizes and consolidates backups across multiple platforms. It provides secure, comprehensive backup protection for business-critical data and applications whether virtual, physical, or online in the cloud.

OpenText

Sample Customers

Adobe, Okta, Samsung, Taylormade, Boston University, Lending Club, North Highland, Stanford University, Ping Identity, Qualcomm, Pandora.

GSK Vaccines, Repsol, Vodafone Group, Siemens AG, Medium Enterprise Transportation Services Company

Buyer's Guide

Mimecast Incydr vs. OpenText Data Protector

April 2025

Free Report: Mimecast Incydr vs. OpenText Data Protector

Find out what your peers are saying about Mimecast Incydr vs. OpenText Data Protector and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

860,168 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Mimecast Incydr vs. OpenText Data Protector report.

We monitor all Data Loss Prevention (DLP) 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.