HPE Zerto Software Reviews

My main use case for HPE Zerto Software is the replication of data to a DR site.

HPE Zerto Software has helped tremendously with my organization's RTO and RPO, bringing it down to an hour rather than taking 12 hours to restore data the traditional way. 

When we were trying to bring the disaster recovery side up, we had an issue with the VMs not coming up. We had to go back and restore. The solution has saved me time in data recovery situations. During DR tests, we were bringing the site up within the first couple of hours. With a different solution I previously used, it would have taken 24 hours to 4 hours to recover.

HPE Zerto Software has helped me reduce my organization's DR testing. Instead of three times, we do it once. Rather than spending time preparing for the test configuration to do a full restore, with HPE Zerto Software replication, it's automatically up within an hour, and then we can start our testing.

The feature of HPE Zerto Software that I appreciate the most is its ease of use. This feature has helped tremendously in getting our DR plan easy to implement. 

My impressions of HPE Zerto's near-synchronous replication are very good. Near-synchronous replication is very important to my organization, and we are using it every day. It works consistently.

HPE Zerto Software could be improved in the future with easier upgrades. I am not aware of any additional features I would like to see included in the next release.

I have been using HPE Zerto Software for a long time.

I would assess the stability and reliability of HPE Zerto Software as very stable. I have experienced some issues sometimes during upgrades. Other than that, it runs smoothly.

I have expanded usage, and the process was smooth.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support as second-hand support since I am not the primary customer for HPE Zerto. I use them through my DR services. I would rate the customer service and technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

Prior to adopting HPE Zerto Software, I was using regular recovery and backup restore systems to address similar needs.

Deployment of HPE Zerto Software was streamlined. It worked quickly and sufficiently.

I have seen a return on investment with HPE Zerto Software. Fast restores are a notable example. It saves us a lot of time and gives us the ability to perform other DR plans for other systems.

It's provided by the DR replication vendor, so it's not a direct cost to us.

We are considering a cyber vault solution as part of our infrastructure. When choosing a cyber vault solution, the capabilities that are most important to us are fast recovery against ransomware and the ability to do multiple checkpoints. 

My advice to another organization considering HPE Zerto Software is to go for it.

I would rate HPE Zerto Software a nine out of ten.

Our company uses Zerto very heavily all the time for DR activities and other activities. We are only maintaining our tier one applications with Zerto while using different tools for our tier two, tier three, and tier four applications. But only for tier one and tier two, we are using Zerto.

Zerto's product and support are unparalleled. Their responsiveness sets them apart from other vendors, as they swiftly engage with customers and manage to sort issues out quickly during calls, without needless delays for log submissions. Their replication service also boasts a sub-10-second RPO and I often see servers synced as quickly as 6 to 7 seconds.

I think Zerto should make the product less expensive, as that's the only reason many people are not registering the product with their companies. We are not using Zerto everywhere across the board, probably due to licensing costs; it could be excessive to manage it. That's why we are only maintaining our tier one applications with Zerto while using different tools for our tier two, tier three, and tier four applications. I definitely think it's expensive, and that's why we are not using that product for the other applications for tier four and beyond.

I have been using Zerto for more than 5 years; I would say almost 7-8 years.

We do see some impact sometimes on our RPOs due to various reasons; it could be because the cluster on the source side may not be stable, or we might have migrated the host to a different cluster where Zerto was not configured.

I am very familiar with Zerto, which is a very good service provider. We had very good feedback. Every time when I work with them, I always receive a really positive response from them and a good solution. Whenever we come across any problem, they try to jump on the call right away. They have very little waiting time. When I open a ticket, within an hour or so, or less than an hour, someone will get connected to me. The good part is that normally, when I work with other vendors, they always look for various logs; they tell us to upload it and try to buy time for almost 3-4 hours by asking questions and wasting time to provide logs when I really need it. Zerto is not like that; they try to jump on a call with you. Another good aspect is that they provide guidance to upgrade our product to be under the supported version if the product is not a supported version. Unlike other companies, they don't just say, 'We don't support the product; follow this document and upgrade.' Instead, Zerto actually makes sure that you have a successful upgrade on your product so that they can support it.

Positive

I used Storix in the past to recover apart from Zerto; we use Storix as well. The biggest difference is the faster recovery with Zerto compared to Storix. As I mentioned, Zerto's product and support are good, too. I was not complaining about the Storix product; they were good but not better than Zerto.

The deployment for the first time definitely requires knowing about the product and how it works, so you need training. Any new person will not be able to manage or do it unless they know how to get things to work. You need proper documentation. Installing the product for the first time is definitely not easy if someone is not aware of the product, but we need to know about the product and how it works to install it for the first time.

The product really provides good support. I'm not aware of the pricing as I'm not from management, but the product is really good. I love the product and their support. If they need any logs, they will try to get them during the call. In that way, the customer can understand that they are really responsible for the product they are providing and they try to help us out. We feel comfortable while comparing them with other vendors because I have worked with many vendors, and I can say that only Microsoft vendors are as good as Zerto in terms of jumping on calls right away to help you out. By using their product, we reduce the downtime of our outage, so if anything goes wrong, I use the Zerto product to reduce downtime. My team has used that one to ensure that we don't experience much downtime. On a scale of 1-10, I rate Zerto a 9.

I am actually a value-added reseller. I personally do not use Zerto. I have customers that use Zerto, and they use it as their cyber recovery. They have also used it to move VMs.

When exactly a company can expect the benefits of Zerto depends on the use case scenario. In the instances I have seen with my customer, it has been both near and immediate-term benefits. Since it is easier for them to use and they are able to work with it and get their workloads done, they also saw benefits from a budget standpoint down the road.

The most valuable features in Zerto are ease of use number one and the support that has come from the Zerto team. They have been very hands-on with 'we are here to help you, train you and teach you how to fish, so you can drive it yourself.'

For us, the impact that Zerto has had on the IT resiliency strategy is that we use it as a way to help our customers set up data recovery should something happen. What we appreciate about it is the snapshot and how much easier it is to access.

The near synchronous replication works very well. This is not my experience. It is my customer's experience. They have been very happy with it. They had a bunch of VMs they wanted to move since they wanted to migrate some stuff, and it worked very well for them. It actually helped them beat their timeline as it worked so well. They were going to have a very, very, very hefty renewal that they had to pay. And so it saved them lots of money. It worked quickly and they were able to meet their timeline.

It's helped with DR testing. 

Better communication around pricing would be useful - particularly in light of the economic and tariff situation we have going on.

I have been using Zerto for three years.

We have not had any reports of instability in Zerto from clients. The use case I keep coming back to is our customer who used it to move a bunch of VMs. Once they got it up and deployed, they handily beat their schedule. At one point, they thought they were not going to get all the VMs moved and would have to do a renewal on part of them, however, the ease of use was so good with Zerto that they were able to migrate things much quicker.

Zerto's scalability has been good. One of the things that works for our customer set is what they call t-shirt sizing with extra small, small, medium, large, extra large and jumbo. Those are nice to have as a starting point to talk to a customer, however, then you can go in and tailor that specifically to the customer's needs.

I haven't had a need to contact Zerto's technical support.

Positive

I have used or sold alternatives to Zerto such as Veeam, Commvault, and Rubrik. Zerto is the clear winner.

I find that the initial deployment of Zerto for a client is quite easy. The instances where we rolled it out at customers, the deployment has gone very smoothly. There seems to be something intuitive about Zerto that makes it easier for folks in a company to use.

There's not really any maintenance needed once deployed. 

On average, four people are required for the deployment.

The pricing is competitive.

If I were to compare Zerto to its competitors, Zerto is the winner in data recovery.

I am not a technical person, so I cannot answer that from a technical standpoint regarding what Zerto does better or worse than its competitors. I can answer it from a customer ease of use perspective. The biggest thing we have heard is that it is easy to use and intuitive. The sales teams and technical resources that Zerto has are there to help answer questions and teach the customer how to use it in their environment, so they are able to do things after the Zerto resources are no longer there.

My clients have tried to protect the virtual machines in their environment. I have not seen any effects on RPOs or RTOs. I am an official reseller of Zerto.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Zerto overall a nine.

My main use case for using the HPE Zerto Software is disaster recovery.

The ability to fail workloads over between data centers has benefited my organization significantly. HPE Zerto Software's continuous data replication is very important to my organization.

The features I appreciate the most about HPE Zerto Software are the automated failover and orchestration, and then the journal for point-in-time recovery. 

I don't use HPE Zerto Software directly; it's used by my team, however, they're very complimentary of it.

It's easy to use and does what it says.

HPE Zerto Software has impacted my RTOs or RPOs, and the recovery speed has improved significantly compared to other disaster recovery solutions I've used; it's been really good. An example is that our snapshots were only every 15 minutes, but with HPE Zerto Software replication, our recovery times are in seconds, not minutes.

The solution has helped to reduce my organization's DR testing. I do not know by how much. We haven't reallocated the time saved to other tasks; it just allows us to do more DR testing and recovery, enabling us to go faster in that space.

I am currently using a cyber vault solution for immutable data copies to ensure recovery from a cyberattack. We have multiple solutions: we use Commvault, Cloud MRR, and we also use safe mode on all of our pure storage. When considering a cyber vault solution, cost is probably the most important factor first, and then simplicity to implement.

To improve HPE Zerto Software, I would suggest that the upgrade process is a little bit average and challenging at the moment, rather than necessarily adding features.

I have been using the HPE Zerto Software for two and a half years.

I assess the stability and reliability of HPE Zerto Software as being fine. I only had one small issue a while ago, and that was fixed eventually; it was just one small issue. It didn't cause an outage.

To date, HPE Zerto Software has scaled fine for the growing needs of my organization. I have expanded usage. The expansion process was very smooth.

I evaluate the technical support for HPE Zerto Software as okay, about average. On a scale of one to ten for technical support/customer service, I would give them a seven.

Positive

Prior to adopting HPE Zerto Software, I was using another solution that addresses similar needs: storage replication. The factor that led me to consider a change was capability.

We didn't really go through an evaluation process, so I can't elaborate on what stood out in that regard.

We used a partner to support us, and it took us a while to get it working. Now it's embedded and it's working.

I have not seen a return on investment with HPE Zerto Software, and nothing specific comes to mind.

My experience with the pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been fine.

Before selecting HPE Zerto Software, I considered just standard backup solutions.

My advice to another organization considering using HPE Zerto Software is to go for it. 

Overall, I would rate HPE Zerto Software a nine out of ten.

My main use cases for HPE Zerto Software are to replicate the VM machines to a disaster recovery center and for disaster recovery scenarios.

While I cannot provide a specific example where these features helped my organization since we haven't had a real recovery scenario, it provides peace of mind knowing our data is protected and we can always return to previous checkpoints.

The features of HPE Zerto Software that I value most are its continuous backup capabilities, its effectiveness against ransomware, and the ability to return to any checkpoint in the past. That is probably the best feature. My impressions of HPE Zerto Software's near-synchronous replication are that it provides numerous checkpoints with the ability to go back, which I think is the most important feature.

We encountered some issues with HPE Zerto Software. 

The main concern involves the Delta Sync that triggers when changing the recovery direction. For large virtual machines of several terabytes, this process can take considerable time. As a bank, we are required by regulators to run regular DRC scenario testing for one week from the DRC site. 

When changing replication, the Delta Sync takes approximately six hours for six terabyte virtual machines. During this time, the virtual machine is inaccessible. If another major issue arose requiring us to return to the PDC, we would have to wait six hours for the Delta Sync to complete, which would result in a test failure. This represents our biggest challenge.

I have been using HPE Zerto Software for approximately one and a half years.

Regarding the stability and reliability of HPE Zerto Software, there are occasional warnings and sometimes replication stops for various reasons. However, overall, it is stable and reliable. I would rate it eight points out of ten.

The customer support for HPE Zerto Software is very good. I have opened several cases, and their responses were consistently quick. In most instances, we resolved the issue or they provided proper guidance on how to proceed.

Before implementing HPE Zerto Software, we used SRM, the VMware solution. We also considered building all machines in the DRC as alternatives. However, we abandoned this design as it would have created more complications, requiring the application team to release applications on both sides.

Our organization implemented HPE Zerto Software to address the challenge of maintaining a functional disaster recovery scenario. Prior to HPE Zerto Software, we used VMware, but due to VMware's license policy changes, we anticipated significantly higher costs for future license renewals.

The solution's ease of use with HPE Zerto Software is exceptional. Compared to SRM, it is much more intuitive. The setup process took only a few hours to complete everything. The recovery process is also very straightforward, requiring just a few clicks.

Regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing for HPE Zerto Software, I do not have information about the prices.

We haven't experienced any real recovery scenarios yet, and our testing showed similar recovery times between SRM and HPE Zerto Software. I am currently not using a Cyber Vault solution. 

Overall, I would rate HPE Zerto Software eight out of ten.

I initially started using it as a disaster recovery solution, and I am still using it as a cyber test recovery solution. I also began to use it as a migration tool for cloud, from on-premises to cloud.

The replication feature stands out. The way I can sync servers from on-premises to the cloud ensures the consistency of the VMs without hampering their state. This is a very beneficial feature. Once replication is initialized, the complete state of the server is replicated, known as the initial sync. Subsequently, the Bitmap sync occurs, capturing changes on the protected server in real-time and replicating them to the protected site as well. For example, my primary site in Austin, Texas, used to recover to Santa Clara. Recovery was previously tedious, taking a whole day for all servers to bring up and validate their consistency. With the deployment of Zerto, this has significantly improved.

In newer versions, the success rate compared to older versions is quite low. I have tried to implement Zerto version ten in my environment, but for some reason, multiple errors occur, forcing me to revert to the previous version. Despite the previous version being out of support, there is no alternative to getting the newer version working. For example, when a requirement arises to replicate one server located in a different vCenter to another site, I download the latest version and deploy it, but I face issues deploying the VRA agent on the ESX host. This keeps failing despite multiple cases raised with Zerto support, none resolved in a timely manner. By the time the issue is looked into, it is often too late for my requirements, leading me to abandon Zerto ten installation and revert to the earlier versions. Presently, there is an open case with Zerto support concerning Zerto ten deployment issues, yet no fix has been provided. Hopefully, a resolution will be found soon.

I have been using the solution for five to six years.

Initially, I had a few stability issues. While some remain unresolved despite submitting cases, I have found workarounds. These issues do exist, as random crashes occur. Understanding how it works, I avoid troubleshooting, which risks the replication servers. Instead, I promptly delete the malfunctioning elements and set them up again to resume replication, ensuring stability.

In terms of basic troubleshooting, they perform well. However, when engineering support is required, delays occur. One notable example is the challenges faced during total implementation. I have raised three to four cases, yet due to urgency and delays, they were not resolved on time. When more complex issues arise, support takes additional time, but they handle simpler issues within two to three days.

Neutral

Earlier, I used Site Recovery Manager from VMware, which had errors and delays, and was not as flexible compared to Zerto. This prompted me to switch to Zerto. I am also using ASR, the Azure Site Recovery Manager, for cloud-to-cloud operations. Although recent features were introduced, I have not thoroughly explored them, leading to the adoption of ASR.

The setup process took around one month because I was unfamiliar with the product, necessitating some learning. I had daily calls with the account manager and managed to set it up to Zerto's standards within a month.

The deployment was a one-person job handled by two individuals, with me being the primary one. It was straightforward enough for a single person to manage.

I can give it nine out of ten.

My use cases with Zerto are primarily focused on backup and ransomware protection.

There has never been a situation where we've had to use Zerto for DR.

We have improved RPOs and RTOs. Immutability is a huge factor.

The near-synchronous replication is a great feature. It does work, and it's nice to have that. We're backing up all the time. 

We couldn’t see its benefits immediately. A lot of time had to pass, and honestly, we're still working on it.

There is one one-click remediation for ransomware.

We have had some technical difficulties getting a full restore at a file level. One of the problems we were having was to do a full VM recovery to get one file, because we were encountering errors within Zerto. I don't think we have that one fixed yet. However, we do see a huge improvement in our RTO with a full VM recovery.

Zerto is pretty robust. My input would be to have their sales engineers not overpromise and then have the product underdeliver because we were scoped not-appropriately sized target hardware. That hit us hard. We went with Exagrid as our target. Because of incorrect sizing, we didn't get the expected compression, and we ran out of space. We didn't have enough capacity for all of our backups the way we wanted them tiered. It crippled Zerto as well.

I still don't know how I feel about the purchase by HPE. Their support has been top-notch. They've been trying to work with us to get this fixed. However, I didn't like some of the proposals that they made. At one point, they proposed that we pull out Zerto and put in the HPE backup solution.

I have been using Zerto in my career for several years now, and it has played a crucial role in my work.

It's stable.

They're pretty responsive. The quality is there. It looks like we need to go back to the drawing board, which is very unfortunate. I would rate them a nine out of ten. Their support is very good.

Positive

We've used Veeam in conjunction with Dell's Data Domain. We also used the other VDI solution. They're a direct competitor of Veeam. 

I prefer Rubrik over Zerto because of scalability, but the drawback is the cost. Rubrik costs considerably more.

Initial deployment seemed easy. It was a little time-consuming and took a little bit of my sysadmin's time to create all the tiers and do all the configuration, but it was pretty easy. It was smooth.

After the deployment, it does require some maintenance. Because of all the problems that we've had, the maintenance has been fixing or trying to fix what wasn't correct with scoping. We keep running out of space, so our maintenance is that we go in and reconfigure our tiers, and we don't get a 100% backup.

It's fair. My biggest gripe with Zerto is the initial scoping. What we were promised didn't work with what we ended up with. At one point, our Exagrid representative told us that he doesn't know why they scoped it this way, but that's impossible. We can't do what we're expecting to do with just these two Exagrids.

I would rate Zerto a seven out of ten. Their product is solid, but the implementation left a sour taste in my mouth.

While we primarily function as a service provider rather than serving a direct use case, our core focus lies in disaster recovery. We employ a rigorous testing process akin to gear testing and actively engage in recovery operations using Zerto for a diverse clientele, including numerous entities in the financial and government sectors.

Zerto is straightforward to use.

We started to see the full benefits of Zerto one month after the implementation.

The effort on the RPOs has been excellent, greatly enhancing our operations. We have a diverse range of customers who are quite satisfied and express confidence in the timeline for recovery. 

Even Zerto's RTO is low.

Zerto has helped significantly reduce downtime and helped reduce DR testing by over 45 percent.

The most valuable aspect of Zerto is synchronized replication, which is very useful. Additionally, the availability of the virtual machines is quite good. Regarding the recovery point, we achieved at least ten recovery points, and the availability of the virtual machines is particularly notable.

The main issue with Zerto is its user interface, which lacks flexibility and presents a steep learning curve. To improve usability, the UI should be simplified and streamlined, making it more accessible to technical and non-technical users. Additionally, the UI should be better aligned with the platform's various options and features, ensuring a more intuitive and efficient user experience.

I have been using Zerto consistently for almost four and a half years.

Zerto continues to be a stable solution.

Zerto is scalable.

We interacted with technical support many times. They were totally fine and very polite. We receive support around the clock, which is excellent.

Positive

The initial setup of Zerto was straightforward, and their customer service was instrumental in helping us achieve a stable implementation within one month.

A team of five implemented Zerto in-house.

One of Zerto's main disadvantages is its pricing structure, which involves significant upfront costs and limited options for startups with minimal initial funding. Although Zerto offers a comprehensive suite of features, the high cost and lack of flexible payment options, such as pay-as-you-go subscriptions, present a barrier to entry for many businesses. To increase accessibility, Zerto should consider offering lower pricing tiers or more flexible subscription models tailored to startups' needs.

We evaluated a lot of different solutions.

There are some disadvantages; therefore, I rate Zerto eight out of ten. 

We are not a partner, just a customer, but we are trying to collaborate with them as a reseller within one year.

No maintenance has been required as of yet.