We compared Dell Avamar and Nakivo based on user reviews in five categories. We reviewed all of the data and you can find the conclusion below.
Features: Dell Avamar earns acclaim for its scalability, data compression capabilities, swift incremental backups, and seamless integration with Data Domain and VM stacks. Nakivo is praised for its offsite backup to Synology NAS and seamless cloud integration. Dell Avamar could improve its tape connectivity and bare-metal restoration. Users also requested better Azure backups and a more user-friendly interface. Nakivo could benefit from improvements in its remote upgrade capabilities, SNMP features, and application backup.
Service and Support: Some customers express satisfaction with Dell support, but others said there is room for improvement. Nakivo's support is praised for being quick, considerate, and attentive.
Ease of Deployment: Opinions on Dell Avamar’s setup were mixed. Some users found it to be straightforward, while others considered it complex and difficult. Deployment time ranged from a few hours to a week, and assistance from Dell engineers might be necessary. Nakivo's setup was described as straightforward. A few users said the deployment was somewhat complex but not excessively difficult.
Pricing: Dell Avamar’s pricing is generally seen as reasonable, but some users think it is expensive. Nakivo offers lower licensing costs and a flexible pricing structure. Nakivo provides cost-efficient backups at a competitive price and even offers a free license for one year for up to five VMs.
ROI: Dell Avamar provides cost savings through data reduction, deduplication, and compression. Nakivo ensures a favorable return on investment with a reasonable total cost of ownership and reduced testing expenditures.
Comparison Results: Dell Avamar is a scalable solution that offers excellent data compression and fast compression. However, Avamar earned mixed reviews for support, deployment, and pricing. Users also requested better Azure and bare-metal backups and restoration capabilities. Nakivo is a powerful, cost-effective solution that seamlessly integrates with the cloud, but it could use some enhancements in its SNMP features and remote upgrading functionality.
"We are talking about a complete end-to-end solution which comes with its own hardware storage to back up the data on tape-less."
"We have a lot of backups, and this tool helps us with the RMAN Backup."
"Scheduling is valuable. It does a good job of backing up, and it does a good job of restoring. Nobody has got a problem with that. The agents are well supported."
"The tool's most valuable features are backup management and speed."
"I think the brand is very good. Support is also very nice for end users and integration with EMC products for businesses."
"The deduplication feature is the best aspect of the solution."
"The setup is very easy."
"It's a good solution."
"Nakivo's backup and replication product has allowed us to implement a disaster recovery solution with a target repository in the cloud."
"The easy management and a good overview are the most important aspects."
"The product license and support delivery have been great!"
"Technical support responds very quickly."
"The backup and replication are great."
"The automatic backup and replication features are invaluable, saving us time and resources by automating routine backup tasks and ensuring data protection without manual intervention."
"We have been able to set up a failover site that has replicas of our critical VMs."
"The product is good for protecting very low-budget offices, whereas other solutions fail in terms of cost and footprint of the VMs involved."
"Dell hasn't done a good job at handling these upgrades, or the way EMC used to handle them."
"We'd like to see something that could also work with Unix servers and physical servers to have a unified solution that works with everything."
"The solution used to freeze sometimes while taking a snapshot backup."
"A benefit would be support for either Azure Cool Storage or AWS Glacier."
"I would like to see better integration with third-party applications and platforms."
"There are limitations when trying to use this solution with Hyper-V."
"When you get down to doing certain things, such as somebody wants a particular file restored, the process by which you do that is stupid. You kind of have to know exactly where to look for in order to find it. Even on older backup products that I've used, I didn't have that kind of problem. If we were looking for a file with a particular kind of a name, the solution would find that file anywhere irrespective of where it resides within the backup system. So, we didn't have to know the name of the specific server, the specific timeframe, almost all the characters of the file name, and all kinds of data in order to find a file. In Avamar, we got to know these details. We've gone around and around with them on that, and their attitude seems to be that it is working just fine. There is nothing for them to improve. The organizational system of other products that I'm working with, such as Zerto and Cohesity, seems to be centered around the tasks that you would most commonly do and want to do, as opposed to we've laid it out in a really neat technical hierarchy."
"Dell EMC Avamar is a very complex product. It took a lot of time for the IT admins to get trained on how to use it. It is not very user-friendly, and we won't be using Avamar anymore. It needs a lot of improvement in terms of how the backups have been configured, and the reporting is too complex."
"The only thing we have encountered that we would like to see improved in the future are error messages. They could be more detailed and helpful, without the need to send logs to support. Failing that, the part of the log related to the error could be displayed alongside the error message, so I can investigate the error without looking through all of those logs that I'm able to download."
"Right now we know that Nakivo has the ability to back up as an incremental process and restore backups across several criteria. However, it would be good if we had the ability to backup a system like PostgreSQL."
"One of the things I liked least about this software is when an update was pushed to one of the servers we had, somehow we didn't receive the update and needed some quick troubleshooting."
"It would be good to have some Oracle database backup capability from the Linux OS in the next release."
"The product needs to improve backup speed and replication speed."
"It would be helpful to be able to have a custom footprint so that only the required features are installed."
"Sometimes, for some VMs and some Windows Server versions, specifically old versions (aka server 12 or older) fail due to the VSS writer error or locking file system."
"We want the backup job to consume fewer resources, as the utilization is very high if we choose the best compression."
Dell Avamar is ranked 12th in Backup and Recovery with 81 reviews while NAKIVO Backup & Replication is ranked 6th in Backup and Recovery with 84 reviews. Dell Avamar is rated 7.6, while NAKIVO Backup & Replication is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Dell Avamar writes "Stable, integrates well with other solutions, and has a good price, but its UI needs a refresh". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NAKIVO Backup & Replication writes "Good deduplication, easy to configure, and offers a free version". Dell Avamar is most compared with Dell PowerProtect Data Manager, Veeam Backup & Replication, Dell NetWorker, Dell PowerProtect DP (IDPA) and Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), whereas NAKIVO Backup & Replication is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Hornetsecurity Altaro VM Backup, Acronis Cyber Protect, Rubrik and Zerto. See our Dell Avamar vs. NAKIVO Backup & Replication 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.