HPE Zerto Software Reviews

Primarily, I use it for disaster recovery. I like the Zerto RPO. I can perform short recovery and recovery time. That's the reason I go for Zerto.

The retention and the snapshot retention, which I am able to do every three seconds or every five seconds, are valuable. That is primarily what I like the most. The RPO I am looking at is five minutes. I need to bring things up, referring to recovery time. I need it every five seconds. In comparison in terms of ease of use, Zerto offers a much better user experience. It has basically reduced our disaster recovery time by at least fifty percent. In terms of IT resiliency, this provides a better SLA to the user. That's how it helps me.

The mission critical apps, like the ERP system or any casino software, are areas that I always hope to improve.

I have been working on Zerto for the past five years.

Primarily, medium enterprises use it. Most of my sites are customers using Zerto, and these are usually medium enterprises.

Positive

Some customers use different solutions. They use this data, Acronis, and another called Shadow Protect.

If I am talking about just deploying it, setting up the policy probably takes less than an hour. But the whole idea is that I do the backup depending on the size. If not deployment, then having the full Doctor replication takes time. So, if the replication will take a time slot, that's the consideration. Is it complex to deploy? It is quite straightforward as long as I plan it properly.

The ROI is primarily calculated based on downtime. It is all tied back to how mission critical the apps are. When an app is down, I assess the impact on production or the business. The ROI is justified based on the criticalness of the apps.

Primarily, it's VM only. It's more about recovery times and a feature called Zerto Khing, which allows you to group applications. You can do group Doctor, which is an advantage. From a technical perspective, Acronis is not meeting the RPO that I require. This is the primary reason for using it. Zerto is more expensive. In licensing, Zerto is probably double the price of Acronis. It works perfectly well, and I've been using Zerto for the past years. The overall product rating is nine out of ten. I rate the solution nine out of ten.

We primarily use Zerto for our DR requirements.

Near-synchronous replication is pretty much a major benefit from our perspective. We are mainly using it for DR.

We use Zerto to help protect VMs in our environment. With the use of Zerto, we now have defined RPOs, which is good.

Zerto has helped to reduce our organization's DR testing. It has also enabled us to do DR testing more thoroughly, so it has reduced the time, but it has also enabled us to do more of it.

In terms of its effect on our IT resiliency strategy, from our on-prem environment, it has been the cornerstone. We are now building a new DR strategy around Zerto because of the value that it has.

We were able to realize the benefits of Zerto pretty much immediately. At the end of the day, we had a gap. It had an immediate impact on our ability to recover.

What I like most about Zerto is that it just works at the end of the day. It is almost a set-it-and-forget-it solution in relation to its capability of keeping the DR environment in sync.

Testing is also a good feature. Bubble tests ensure the integrity of those images, and the replication process is also a major benefit.

Its capability to detect anomalies also within the transport layer is valuable. While moving and replicating the traffic, we have a little bit of comfort because of its ability to detect ransomware or anomalies within the transfer.

They should not make it so expensive so that I can buy more of it. Other than that, I do not have anything. We have not come across any issue. We are still fairly new to the product.

Zerto has been in our environment for 12 months.

It has been rock solid.

Scalability for us is based on the licensing count. I would scale it across the organization if possible, but I cannot. At the moment, it is meeting our current requirements based on our licensing constraints.

The only disaster recovery product we used was centered around recovery or restoration from backup. We never really had a disaster recovery product per se. It was managed by other backup mechanisms and replication forms. 

Zerto was put in because we knew we had a gap within our DR strategy based on RPO extensions. It was deployed to bridge gaps within our DR strategy at that moment. 

The initial setup was done by HPE. We went with a turnkey solution with HPE Professional Services and our incumbent tender previously used. They handled the installation and setup. We handle the management of it now, but I cannot comment much on the installation because they did it for us. It worked, and we went through training and have been using the product since.

Its learning has been fine. It has been like any other product. HPE has supported us. They have provided professional training for the team. I have not heard from the team about any issues or gaps. HPE has been very supportive of the implementation of Zerto.

It does not require any maintenance at our end. The installation is still fairly new. Nothing has come to a low yet. Over a period of time, we would probably have to spend more time on the maintenance aspect of it, but at the moment, it is pretty much a set-and-forget.

From a pricing standpoint, there is value in it without question. However, it can become quite expensive when you start looking at the number of workloads you have in the environment and what you would like to do.

We assessed other products in the market but found Zerto to be the best within this particular space. Additionally, Zerto was installed as part of a data center refresh program with HPE. We replaced compute and storage within our on-premise data centers. Considering Zerto is part of HPE, it made more sense to implement an end-to-end solution with HPE.

To new users evaluating it, I would say that if they can afford it, they should buy it.

I would rate Zerto a nine out of ten, and that is because there is always room for improvement.

I use Zerto to monitor replication, configure protection, and manage disaster recovery and performance.

We implemented Zerto to manage disaster recovery and also for faster performance on backups and failovers.

Learning how to use Zerto can be easily achieved with some training and practice.

Zerto has helped us reduce downtime, retrieve backups faster, and manage our workload more efficiently.

Zerto has reduced downtime by 20 percent and helps protect the VMs in our environment.

It is 25 percent faster at recovering data compared to IBM Spectrum Protect.

Zerto has helped save four hours per week in recovery situations and has reduced our disaster recovery testing by 30 percent. We have used five percent of those savings towards other value-added tasks.

It has positively impacted our IT resiliency strategy.

Zerto enables disaster recovery in the cloud which is important.

Zerto provides real-time analytics and monitoring, enabling our organization to quickly identify and resolve issues. 

Zerto makes my work easier. Replicating my settings helps me recover point objectives faster and retain policies.

The most valuable feature is the customization that allows me to set my protection group myself.

While Zerto provides good service, I find the pricing to be high and believe there is room for improvement. I would like to see Zerto implement a pay-as-you-go model.

While Zerto offers scalability, its implementation can be more challenging in larger organizations, indicating room for improvement in its scalability features.

I have been using Zerto for three years.

I would rate the stability of Zerto seven out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Zerto seven out of ten.

The technical support responds promptly to our requests.

Positive

I previously used IBM Spectrum Protect but Zerto provides a quicker recovery time. With IBM the recovery process for particular data is manual but with Zerto it is automated.

The initial deployment of Zerto was straightforward and took two hours to complete. Two people were involved in the deployment.

We have seen a 20 percent return on investment.

Zerto is priced high.

I would rate Zerto eight out of ten.

Zerto is deployed in multiple departments and we have ten users.

I recommend Zerto because it helps recover data faster and improves its overall quality.

Currently, my main use case for HPE Zerto Software is for failover. We have a site in Salt Lake City and another data center in Oregon. We fail over from this site to that site, verify, and fail things back. This is its main purpose as of today.

The feature of HPE Zerto Software that I appreciate the most is the ability to pick and choose what to fail over and when to failover. It is really easy to build a new zone and add servers, as well as remove them.

An example of how the features of HPE Zerto Software have benefited my organization was when we lost a circuit. We have a primary circuit from Salt Lake over to Portland and a backup one that runs through several different sites. We actually lost the main one and had to failover. Because most of the servers are in Salt Lake City, we had to replicate those back over to Portland because that is where they make the money. I had a few minor hiccups, but it was not our fault. It was just bandwidth, but we now have a larger pipe. That was a happy accident when we discovered why it was not going any faster - we were maxed out.

I find HPE Zerto Software to be pretty intuitive as it is, and I have nothing to suggest for improvement.

I have been using HPE Zerto Software for about four years now.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate the stability and reliability of HPE Zerto Software at about 20. It just works.

HPE Zerto Software scales with the growing needs of my organization. The only issue I have ever encountered was when our developers grew busy and expanded their applications too quickly for licensing. That was resolved with a simple phone call. We received the new key by end of day after discussing how many additional licenses were needed.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support for HPE Zerto Software as exceptional. They listen first, then ensure they understand the problem before providing multiple solution alternatives. Having been in computing for almost 35 years, they are one of probably two or three companies that truly listen first.

I was using another solution to address similar needs prior to adopting HPE Zerto Software, but I am not sure what it was.

My experience with pricing, setup, costs, and licensing for HPE Zerto Software has been positive. The installers were knowledgeable and completed the installation correctly the first time. When we upgraded from VMware 6 to version 7, we needed to install a new agent. When it did not work initially, technical support quickly resolved the issue with specific instructions in just one call.

I have seen an ROI with HPE Zerto Software through faster recovery. We are getting closer to the five nines. Having the confidence that if something happens, our documented steps will work is invaluable.

I have personally used Veeam before selecting HPE Zerto Software, but having only been with the company for five years, I am not sure what solutions were used before that.

HPE Zerto Software is important to my organization because when performing replication, both systems remain functional during failover until the final switch. This results in virtually no downtime.

HPE Zerto Software has helped reduce downtime by at least 25% through faster recovery. For instance, if we lose an image, we can quickly recover it and power the VM back on, which is much better than retrieving a golden image that could take hours.

The solution has impacted my RTOs and RPOs significantly, saving me approximately two hours per day. It has also reduced our DR testing frequency from every other month to twice a year.

Regarding Cyber Vault solutions, the most important capability would be the ability to isolate a server immediately after a ransomware attack to investigate the incident.

My advice to other organizations considering HPE Zerto Software is to consider its ease of integration. It integrates seamlessly with various networks and works especially with HP infrastructure. The support from both HP and HPE Zerto Software teams is excellent.

I rate HPE Zerto Software 10 out of 10.

We are using Zerto as a disaster recovery solution.

We utilize Zerto for three replication scenarios: on-premises to on-premises, on-premises to cloud, and planned cloud-to-cloud replication.

Zerto is easy to use and implement, especially when performing a failover.

Zerto's near synchronous replication is valuable for our SQL database.

The benefits of Zerto were immediately apparent. After implementation, we quickly realized we were protected against any disaster. Zerto also provides visibility into the health of replication, allowing us to identify and address any potential issues.

Since implementing Zerto, we have observed a positive impact on our Recovery Point Objectives, which have been reduced by half.  Zerto's ability to easily group servers by application and configure protection groups streamlined our processes. Moreover, Zerto's support for on-premises to cloud replication is invaluable. We've leveraged this capability to replicate all systems to the cloud, establishing a robust disaster recovery solution. Zerto has proven to be an effective cloud migration and disaster recovery planning tool.

Our Recovery Time Objective determines how quickly we can restore our infrastructure. Zerto has been instrumental in reducing our RTO by enabling rapid recovery in any disaster recovery scenario.

Zerto has significantly reduced our downtime. For example, some servers have a recovery point objective of just five seconds. During disaster recovery tests conducted last year, we recovered 60 servers within eight hours, including server delivery, startup, and operating system verification by our team.

Zerto is our primary tool for achieving all disaster recovery objectives.

Zerto is a flexible and resilient business continuity and disaster recovery solution. Its industry-leading replication technology enables seamless data protection across cloud, on-premise, and hybrid environments.

Another valuable feature is the failover capability. Unlike many other tools we tested, Zerto allows us to perform a disaster recovery test without risk to our production environment.

Zerto's current reporting capabilities are insufficient for our needs. We require detailed reports to analyze the performance of our environments. To achieve this, we have developed a custom reporting solution using Zerto and other tools to thoroughly assess VPG configurations and overall environment health against specified parameters. Unfortunately, Zerto does not natively provide this level of reporting functionality.

I have been using Zerto for seven years.

Zerto is highly stable, and I do not recall encountering any crashes.

Scaling Zerto is easy. We just need to add additional virtual/appliances servers.

Zerto provides excellent support, but response times to our issues can sometimes be a concern, possibly due to the size and complexity of our environment.

Positive

We currently utilize both SRM and Zerto, but SRM's replication capabilities are limited to data centers, while Zerto offers additional cloud replication options. Unlike SRM, which is exclusively designed for VMware infrastructure, Zerto is compatible with other virtual platforms, providing greater flexibility.

Zerto is easier to use than SRM.

The initial deployment is straightforward. We only need to deploy a few servers to build an environment and start to replicate.

Deploying Zerto in a single region required three months. One contributing factor to this timeline was the time-intensive process of collecting Virtual Recovery Appliances and deploying them across 500 ESXi servers. A team of ten architects and engineers was dedicated to this project.

The implementation was completed in-house by my team and me. As the architect, I oversaw the project's planning, construction, and deployment. We consulted with Zerto to identify potential areas for improvement.

Compared to other options like SRM, Zerto is a more expensive solution, making it primarily suitable for larger organizations. Smaller and medium-sized businesses might find Zerto's cost expensive. While Azure Site Recovery is free for users of Azure cloud services, Zerto offers a broader range of features.

I would rate Zerto nine out of ten.

Our organization takes a unique approach to disaster recovery testing, conducting 15 tests annually to meet policy and audit requirements. Zerto is the cornerstone of our DR testing strategy, enabling us to validate between five and seven applications in each test.

Zerto requires ongoing maintenance and a dedicated person monitors it daily. However, we must still test and deploy updates into our production environment.

Potential users should be knowledgeable of virtual environments and clearly understand their disaster recovery needs, including the required replication type, desired recovery strategy, and whether Zerto aligns with their specific requirements.

We do many data-related activities for various government ministries in India. We use Zerto to back up and recover data in many training and capacity-building activities.

We implemented Zerto to address challenges with data centralization in our complex platform environment. Previously, pulling data from a central source was impossible due to the need to feed it into an internal location before deployment. This limitation hindered customization and integration efforts. Additionally, integrating our primary data source, previously used with IBM, into the new platform proved difficult due to compatibility issues. Zerto's capabilities were seen as a potential solution to these problems.

The remarkable benefits of Zerto have yet to manifest fully. The software operates efficiently without significant bugs or issues, and Zerto's customer support has been responsive. While real-time reporting is a standout feature compared to other trial products, its impact on our ongoing projects remains to be determined. A full assessment of Zerto's potential will require an additional six months.

Zerto has significantly improved our Recovery Time Objective, particularly regarding project timelines. The expedited turnaround during critical project phases has been instrumental in streamlining our processes. By accelerating these stages, we've reduced the need for additional developer resources and eliminated time-consuming tasks associated with establishing essential parameters and metrics. As a result, projects that previously took six months can now be completed in as little as four. This accelerated timeline has enhanced profitability and optimized resource allocation, allowing us to maximize project revenue.

Zerto has significantly reduced our disaster recovery testing efforts. By consolidating software and streamlining processes, we've dramatically decreased the required manpower. Multiple teams efficiently utilize a single platform, eliminating the need for disparate services and reducing costs. This centralized approach has markedly decreased the time and resources invested in disaster recovery testing and pre-testing activities.

Zerto's greatest strength is its speed. We never encountered lag or interruptions, even when working remotely from home or other locations with potentially limited internet bandwidth. The software's streaming performance was exceptional, without buffering or connectivity issues. This was a primary factor in our decision, as Zerto emphasized its ability to operate effectively on lower bandwidth connections during the initial demo. Deploying the software in any remote location is straightforward and hassle-free.

The primary concern expressed by all server users is the lack of robust integration features. While Zerto offers some integration capabilities, the smooth and efficient data flow between portals remains a significant challenge. The support and technical teams know this issue and actively seek user feedback, but progress has been slow. The current process, involving multiple platforms and a database management system bottleneck, is time-consuming and inefficient. Additionally, while reporting and dashboard features exist, real-time reporting and mobile functionality require improvement. The user interface could be more intuitive and user-friendly. Customization, a critical requirement for government clients, is another concern. Implementing requested changes is often time-consuming and expensive, hindering adaptability. Addressing these integration, reporting, user experience, and customization issues is essential for improving customer satisfaction and retention.

Currently, Zerto only offers an annual subscription, but it would be beneficial to provide quarterly and semi-annual subscriptions to help retain clients.

I have been using Zerto for one year.

I have not encountered any performance issues, such as lagging or crashing. The system operates efficiently and reliably under various conditions, even with significantly lower bandwidth. Zerto has consistently demonstrated stability and high speed, ensuring uninterrupted application performance.

Approximately 50 to 60 individuals within our ecosystem utilize Zerto directly or indirectly. Given its operational efficiency, which I estimate to be between 95 percent, I confidently assert its scalability. While we haven't encountered a scenario within our ecosystem that necessitates testing its scalability limits, its exceptional performance thus far strongly suggests its capacity to handle increased demands.

Zerto uses a ticketing system and offers support through a help desk accessible via chat or phone. A dedicated technical team is assigned to address customer issues, which are typically resolved within 24 hours. We have not experienced any significant delays in issue resolution.

Positive

We find the Zerto pricing fits our budget.

I would rate Zerto nine out of ten.

Maintenance is required quarterly. The Zerto technical and business teams collaborate with us on the backend to remove all the repeated queries that make the system sluggish. This service is charged additionally.

I strongly recommend that anyone considering purchasing Zerto begin with the 30-day trial, which can be extended to 60 days. This ample timeframe allows a thorough evaluation of all features and functionalities. Understanding Zerto's customization and integration capabilities to align with specific business needs is crucial. Had I followed this approach and shared my feedback earlier, the outcome might have been different. Therefore, it's essential to fully explore the trial version before committing to an annual subscription. Close collaboration with the Zerto technical team is vital to ensure successful implementation. While sales teams often present an optimistic view, real-world experiences from existing users provide the most valuable insights. I encourage potential customers to connect with other Zerto users through industry networks to gather honest feedback before purchasing.

Our primary use case is to continuously replicate our VMs to our DR site. Having the ability to recover them at almost any point in time, mostly back thirty days, is the main purpose of Zerto. 

We didn't previously have a continuous replication tool and now we have the ability to recover to any number of points in time. That's really beneficial to us. It cuts down our recovery time. 

The most valuable feature is how quickly it powers down the original source VMs and the speed at which it powers up the new VMs. The amount of time it takes to put up the operating system is valuable. The speed is what I like the best. 

The near-synchronous replication is awesome. When you get hit by a cyberattack, you never know where the clean VM resides, and at what point in time it actually exists. Having the ability to find the point in time when we are clean is a good thing.

We are going from a physical data center to a physical data center at the moment.

We use Zerto to protect VMs in our environment. It increased our ability to restore at a point in time. We didn't have it before, and now we have it.

Compared to other tools, Zerto is a lot faster. There are tools with your primary block storage backup, but they're just not as fast.

I'm having a problem with CentOS 7 and with VMs with multiple network adapters. Zerto recognizes those multiple network adapters on CentOS 7 vm but it will not give me the option to specify a failover IP, for that particular VM. Something's not working right, but Zerto is going to follow up. 

Zerto has been in production for three months. 

It seems stable so far. 

The scalability seems pretty easy. 

Customer service is really good. Technical technical support is lacking. At least from who I've been talking to. Maybe my case has not gotten bumped up to the higher level technicians. Customer support is great, and they're really responsive but their technical knowledge is just not quite there.

Zerto's documentation is outdated. I'm finding it hard to find documents related to my questions. Their documentation is bad.

Neutral

The initial setup was very easy. We needed a little help with the initial configuration, but it was pretty straightforward. 

We worked with Eagle Technologies for the deployment. We loved them.

I wasn't involved in negotiating any pricing. It evidently worked into our budget.

We also looked at Cohesity and Rubrik. I don't know that there's anything like Zerto. We went with Zerto because our third-party vendor recommended it. We also did a proof of concept two years ago. We liked what we saw with Zerto so we went with it. 

Everybody taunts their one pane of glass but Zerto is simple to use. I really like the GUI, the interface is not too busy. 

I would rate Zerto a nine out of ten. We don't have a test network setup. I know with Zerto, you can simulate a recovery. 

Zerto would be a perfect ten if the documentation was easier and if level 1 support would be more knowledgeable.

A lot of use cases involve how we effectively manage our DR and make sure there's not a lot of manual effort. On the business side, we proved the solution worked and showed the analytics on the DR report afterward. Those are the requirements.

At one of the banks I worked for, we used it for our merger and acquisition to replicate a legacy application that was no longer supported. Rather than try to rebuild it, which would have taken days or weeks, we could use Zerto to replicate it to our data center and join it to our domain. That was one of the biggest use cases we have had. 

Another use case is for disaster recovery as a service (DRaaS) and to migrate service to a public cloud.

Zerto's near-synchronous replication is great. Not a lot of solutions can do that, and most organizations don't know that Zerto can do it. Once you have that near-sync capability, you can see how much more you can recover and be more resilient. 

At the end of the day, we're trying to protect our data and not put the company at risk, whether it's from a cyber attack or just any sort of DLP data loss. 

In financial services, data is paramount: protecting it, making sure you don't lose it, and integrating it. Having that near-sync ability is useful to any organization.

Zerto helps protect VMs in our environment. It really increased how many points in time we can recover, and not only the time to do it but where we want to do it too. 

Generally, we choose a point in time because they're simulated tests and controlled. In the event of a true disaster, I'm sure I'd utilize one of the closer points to have more recent data, but it's good to have that option. Luckily, I haven't had to use that option.

It's night and day. With other solutions, you're locked into specific RPOs and RTOs based on how that solution works. Zerto gives us the flexibility to choose which we want to use and recover effectively.

The main valuable features are the fast RPO and RTOs we could achieve and the analytics behind that. 

In my role these days, I have to make sure I can prove to the executive team as well as the business lines why we chose this solution and how it can help us.

One of the projects we're working on is DRaaS service. Once that's implemented, we'll test that solution. The whole premise of using Zerto is to replicate one-to-many and then test that scenario.

Zerto should continue adding new features. When I used it at the other bank, it wasn't good with replicating VDIs and automation. They've made a little more advancements in automation and scripting since then. 

At one point, it was custom, requiring professional services. Now, Zerto has more built into its engine that will help with the failover of virtual desktops.

I was an early adopter. I worked for a managed service provider in New York City back in 2009 and was introduced to Zerto near the end of 2010, early 2011. That's when we started implementing it for our clients. I've been bringing Zerto wherever I go ever since.

Stability is great. Sometimes you have network blips, and you can be out of sync, but it'll catch up eventually. There are very minor issues, if any.

It is very scalable. For example, there's a tertiary site that we're building for the DRaaS service. 

We just go to initiate the one-to-many and replicate up there. It's easy.

The customer service and support are responsive initially, and then they help you solve your problem. There was only one time with the custom scripting for the VDI that they wouldn't help because it was custom, and they wanted more money for that. They incorporated that into their solution a few years later.

Positive

In the past, I have used a different solution. I've worked with SRM, Double-Take (which is terrible), and BMC Recovery Point. Ever since I got hooked on Zerto around 2011, it's been pretty much Zerto.

The installation itself is very easy. Any problems I've run into, either when I was managing it or doing the installation myself, support has helped every step of the way and has been very easy to work with.

It's on Expedient's cloud, which might be AWS. I'm not sure. I just know we're doing it through a third party.

A lot of the ROI is with engineering hours. If it took eight hours of overtime to pay one or two engineers to do a DR test, now we can do it in one hour. 

We can factor in how many DR tests you do and calculate the cost savings. That alone is a good ROI.

The pricing is pretty fair. It increases with the number of VMs you have. When we had about 600 VMs at my last bank, we did an enterprise licensing agreement that helped cut down the cost. It required signing on long-term, but it was the most effective.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. I've used this solution for so long and have seen it mature. It's just easy. In IT, especially in a managerial role, we want things to work. We don't want it to be complex. If it serves the business goals of data resiliency, then that's all I need.

Definitely do a proof of concept (POC) and make sure it fits your use cases. On paper, it will, but every company is different. Sometimes, for some reason, it won't work. Or not that it won't work, it just doesn't fit what the business is trying to achieve. So do the POC and see for yourself if it works.