We performed a comparison between OpenText Data Protector and Veeam Agent for Linux [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Veeam Software, Zerto, Commvault and others in Backup and Recovery."I have used Micro Focus Data Protector for the file backup facilities. My primary use of the software is to backup file data."
"It is a traditional backup model. If you talk about file server and the official Windows database, it's a stable product."
"What we find most valuable in Micro Focus Data Protector is that it provides Japanese data protection, for example, it protects information such as the full Japanese name, address, etc."
"It's user-friendly and not overly complicated to configure."
"Ability to automatically detect and secure new data sources without requiring manual configuration intervention."
"Regarding scalability, it's unlimited with Data Protector. You can link multiple installations and let them work together. They can share backup devices. You have many possibilities with Data Protector. It's very proficient."
"The most valuable features of this solution were the features we worked most with which were telemetry, and the scheduler."
"I like that it supports HPE UNIX servers since many backup solutions do not - this is the main reason why we chose this solution."
"The solution is very simple. Management of the platform is so simple that we don't need to have any training to deploy this solution."
"I like the incremental backups and their failover."
"The only thing I really like about it is that you can deploy it from Backup and Replication onto a virtual Linux machine."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature is the instant restore option."
"Veeam Agent for Linux's most valuable feature is the compatibility with virtual machines, such as VMware."
"Veeam has a "next, next, finish" installer, and the overall deployment is straightforward. The deployment is easy because Veeam is compatible with all our VMware services and VMs. Veeam Backup and Veeam ONE are integrated into vCenter or vSphere site deployments, so we don't need to deploy each server one by one."
"It is scalable."
"In general, you can say that Micro Focus Data Protector is behind in capabilities when compared with other backup solutions, such as Commvault, Symantec, NetBackup, but it is very strong for certain use cases such as array integration. We are using it in production even now. There should be some kind of cloud integration and archiving solutions. I think this is the area they need to focus on."
"We have so many specific technological cracks in Micro Focus, but we are not getting the features, facilities, or coordination between the global delivery centers and the R&D team that we need to express our ideas."
"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 interface has been the same for many years and needs to be updated"
"The product can be developed by including functionalities like DR, CDP, and SureBackup, which are currently unavailable in the solution."
"Many of our users complain about the GUI. You still need to rely on the command line interface. Because it originated as a Unix system, Data Protector is still a command line-driven solution, which makes it seem rather dated compared to systems that are built around a GUI from day one. It doesn't affect the functionality, but some people don't find it user-friendly."
"Integration with the market applications must be improved, such as MS Exchange, MS Active Directory, SAP and Oracle. Other backup tools are more efficient with the integrated backups."
"I don't like this solution so much because it's very technical and compared to Commvault and Veeam, it's not so user-friendly. The interface needs improvement."
"There is a compatibility issue with HCI."
"It would be much better if more applications were supported on the Linux side. For example, their agent for Windows not only can back up the Windows machine, but it can also back up Active Directory for granular restore, SQL servers, Exchange, Oracle, SharePoint, etc. When it comes to Linux, only Oracle databases are supported. There are workarounds, though."
"The price of Veeam Agent for Linux could be reduced."
"Scalability, if you are talking about Linux, is good. However, if you need to backup more types of solutions or Unix systems, like HP/UX, AIX, etc., it's not compatible."
"It has no cloud backup feature. You can't back up anywhere outside of your local network."
"The solution is pretty stable right now, however, we believe that the solution could be made to be even more stable."
"In new releases, I hope they can support Oracle cloud."
"I would like to be able to install Veeam directly to Linux instead of having to go through a Windows server."
OpenText Data Protector is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 99 reviews while Veeam Agent for Linux [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Backup and Recovery with 23 reviews. OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6, while Veeam Agent for Linux [EOL] is rated 8.0. 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 Veeam Agent for Linux [EOL] writes "Reliable and issue-free with a helpful onboarding wizard". OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, HPE StoreOnce and Symantec Data Loss Prevention, whereas Veeam Agent for Linux [EOL] is most compared with Microsoft DPM.
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.