We performed a comparison between OpenText Data Protector and Quest NetVault 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."The most valuable feature of Data Protector is its integration with VMware. A lot of software these days integrates with VMware, and you can run some of these things on virtual machines. You can even have your backup manager running on a virtual machine and use physical managers to move data around. Their VMware integration isn't too bad, but Commvault has that feature, and many other backup products do."
"Data Protector's granular recovery features make it easy for us to create and restore backups in an understandable and user-friendly manner. With granular recovery, any database or even just a database table can be restored at will."
"The initial setup was relatively easy."
"It's supports Unix, Linux, all of the OS's. It's very stable software."
"Micro Focus Data Protector's most valuable feature is its interaction with the fiber share. It is easy to use, we use it to back up without any problem to VTLs, and can use the Fiber Channel that is still the TCP."
"I haven't experienced any crashes while using the solution...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Data Protector's GUI is the most useful feature."
"It is a traditional backup model. If you talk about file server and the official Windows database, it's a stable product."
"The platform helps us with efficient QoreStor deduplication (DD) capabilities and configuration."
"It has File and SQL backup, which is the main benefit for us."
"The solution allows us to block off our network and only give access to whatever we want."
"If a job is pending, the solution communicates it to us through emails."
"The interface is very user-friendly."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not that complicated. Deployment took maybe about 15 minutes."
"Having the web-based interface is important to us because we can access it from any computer in the network, rather than having it installed and available for use only on a specific one."
"The user interface is good."
"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."
"We have a lot of requests for the Micro Focus team, particularly in terms of the Japanese data pattern, as it's not as good now. The Japanese data pattern accuracy of the Micro Focus Data Protector needs to be improved because there are a lot of false negatives and false positives. We are currently testing this and our product team has been communicating with the Micro Focus team."
"We face challenges with its stability."
"The graphical interface needs to be improved."
"I'm uncertain if it supports virtual machine backup and restoration. If they could enhance this aspect, they could gain more support from end users."
"It would be ideal if they could improve their level of support."
"Virtualization."
"Microfocus needs to build a partnership with other vendors in addition to HPE as far as cloud consolidation of backups."
"The stability of the solution is poor."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"In the next version, I would like to see support for the MongoDB database. As it is now, there is no component that works with it and we cannot back the data up using NetVault."
"There are certain issues with the product that we report to Quest, and we get offered a workaround instead of a fix. There could be better interaction with the development teams, perhaps in terms of transparency."
"The interface can be improved. It should be more clear what features are available and make them easy to find."
"There are command-line limitations. There is not a very strong possibility to work with the command line. The commands that are there are not that powerful, and you need to be very good at scripting, for example, in PowerShell or in Bash in case it is running on Linux systems. You need to combine a lot of commands together, and still, you will not get a great output that is presentable to others. You cannot work with it as easily."
"I would like to see the option of cloud-based management."
"The storage capacity is very low."
OpenText Data Protector is ranked 23rd in Backup and Recovery with 99 reviews while Quest NetVault is ranked 45th in Backup and Recovery with 10 reviews. OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6, while Quest NetVault is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest NetVault writes "Easy to use, stable, affordable pricing model, and good technical support". OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, HPE StoreOnce and Symantec Data Loss Prevention, whereas Quest NetVault is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Quest Rapid Recovery, Veritas NetBackup, Commvault Cloud and Rubrik. See our OpenText Data Protector vs. Quest NetVault 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.
