We performed a comparison between OpenText Data Protector and Quorum OnQ 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 feature that was most valuable was that we could restore one mailbox and we could do different backups for different databases."
"The dashboards in Micro Focus Data Protector are very good. They are similar to the dashboards in Veeam Backup & Replication."
"The stability of the product seems to be quite good."
"The solution is easy to use."
"Backup of SAP/Oracle -- they are more robust than the competition."
"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 installation was simple and provided an easy way to install even on Unix servers. It has excellent features like deduplication."
"Data Protector's GUI is the most useful feature."
"A very high level security environment for secondary data."
"One of the most valuable features was the usability, since many of the features were very straightforward. The backup and restoration process was also very fast. Although we weren't able to fully test the scenarios, one of the features was that we could have it restored on a remote site. However, since we were on-prem, we weren't able to test the remote site restoration."
"Being able to spin up a machine in a sandbox is amazing because it allows us to test things that we otherwise would not be able to do."
"When it comes to recovering what you need from a backup, it's really easy. You just drill through the directory, find the file and the date that you want, and click to recover. You then pick the directory you want to save it in. Usually, it takes a minute or two and it's done. It's quick and easy."
"The most valuable feature is spinning up a ready-to-go VM in a test or production environment that is based on a backup stored on the Quorum device."
"The biggest feature is being able to do a file recovery to the original server. That is extremely useful and has saved us a few times when we've had ransomware. In some of those cases, people's computers were locked down by viruses which spread to things they had access to, including server shares. But we were easily able to just restore to four hours prior, instead of a day or two or more ago."
"It's easy to implement, easy to spin up, easily configurable, to drop-in appliances and network. There wasn't a lot of time needed to spin it up."
"I have used the BMR (Bare Metal Restore) in several emergencies and it has absolutely saved my bacon."
"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."
"Microfocus needs to build a partnership with other vendors in addition to HPE as far as cloud consolidation of backups."
"Other tools seem to be easier to use."
"It can occasionally be inaccurate in its backup/recovery time estimates."
"In terms of what can be improved, I would say integrations with MongoDB. We use MongoDB and we need to go to scripts to do backups. We need more integrations."
"The Micro Focus Data Protector support is not as good as Veeam Backup & Replication's support."
"VM backups needs to be improved. They need to make it similar to the way Veeam and Commvault are doing the virtual backups."
"Micro Focus are improving Data Protector with every new version and since we began undergoing training with the latest version we have not faced any real challenges yet. However, their support does need to be improved, in my opinion. In certain critical cases that we've had, they did not provide a satisfactory level of support."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"I would really like it if they followed comparable products from other vendors and had an option where you could offload to tape. I know it sounds incredibly antiquated, but the benefit I see is that there would be a better air gap than you have with backing up to an online source."
"Quorum OnQ can be improved by providing support for other operating systems like Ubuntu."
"I don't love the scheduler, as I think that interface could use an overhaul."
"The price is high and could be more competitive."
"The cost could be reduced."
"The one thing they could do is some tweaking on the web solution that's supposed to monitor everything from one page, rather than having to bring each server up on its own webpage. It doesn't always accurately show what the system's state is at the time, and we have to restart that process now and then."
"At times the email notifications don't go out, but a quick reset always fixes that problem."
OpenText Data Protector is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 99 reviews while Quorum OnQ is ranked 40th in Backup and Recovery with 21 reviews. OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6, while Quorum OnQ is rated 9.0. 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 Quorum OnQ writes "Took us just hours to do a complete server restore, with minimal downtime". OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, HPE StoreOnce and Symantec Data Loss Prevention, whereas Quorum OnQ is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Cohesity DataProtect, Acronis Cyber Protect and N-able Cove Data Protection. See our OpenText Data Protector vs. Quorum OnQ 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.
