We performed a comparison between Dell NetWorker and Microsoft DPM 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 GUI is the best feature. It's very good and easy to use."
"Dell EMC NetWorker integrates well with our domain and the performance is quite good on-premise. We receive approximately 1 terabyte within one hour."
"It's easy to use."
"The GUI is user-friendly."
"NetWorker is fast and reliable."
"It is scalable software. All you need to increase is its RAM and CPU. It's pretty easy."
"The solution is stable."
"Dell EMC NetWorker is scalable."
"The most valuable feature is that DPM has an index so individual files can be searched."
"It has an application backup, a file backup, a system backup and a hypervisor."
"Microsoft DPM is scalable."
"The solution backs up Microsoft workloads as well as anything on the market."
"The automated procedure is quite good for us, as it is able to capture all of the information that we require."
"The most important feature is that it's easy to use."
"I like the core backup feature. I also like the file server backup feature. I find Microsoft DPM interesting because it has fantastic integration with Microsoft products. For example, in Exchange and SharePoint, DPM is excellent when it comes to backing up data. It also does a decent job with open-source products."
"Its capability to give a BMR for all the workstations that I want to connect to."
"The management of Dell Networker is quite cumbersome."
"I would like to see better support for the container systems, and we would like to see more support for image backups instead of pure file backups."
"The user interface has to be improved"
"Lacks a restore feature."
"The UI is not user-friendly."
"The software also isn't user-friendly like Convault or Rubrik. The solution errors and management aren't so good in comparison."
"The team does not have enough knowledge to support you."
"The front end of the solution could improve. The user-friendliness is lacking."
"There is a very poor online user community in terms of people blogging about their experiences with DPM."
"The user interface can be improved quite a bit."
"To evaluate the solution's abilities and its performance under demanding conditions, it is recommended to carry out a stress test."
"The problem lies with the 2019 version, it's the file system they’re using."
"Microsoft DPM could improve if it was available in a public or private cloud."
"Compatibility and integration with other products needs improvement."
"The user friendliness could be improved."
"It would be better if it integrated seamlessly with open source and competitor products. In the next release, I would like to see some data governance frameworks. It should have support features for data integration and data replication like Veeam. Right now, we are also using Veeam for certain scenarios."
Dell NetWorker is ranked 13th in Backup and Recovery with 73 reviews while Microsoft DPM is ranked 29th in Backup and Recovery with 17 reviews. Dell NetWorker is rated 7.8, while Microsoft DPM is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Dell NetWorker writes "A stable tool that has an easy-to-use GUI that enables quick restoration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft DPM writes "Good for backing up, but the 2019 version lags". Dell NetWorker is most compared with Dell PowerProtect Data Manager, Dell Avamar, Veeam Backup & Replication, Veritas NetBackup and Commvault Cloud, whereas Microsoft DPM is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Azure Backup, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), Veeam Data Platform and Commvault Cloud. See our Dell NetWorker vs. Microsoft DPM 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.