We performed a comparison between Microsoft DPM and N-able Cove Data Protection 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 most valuable feature is that DPM has an index so individual files can be searched."
"I could back up all the stuff we had, even the VMs we have for Hyper V."
"The user interface is very good. The reporting and monitoring features are also good."
"Its capability to give a BMR for all the workstations that I want to connect to."
"This solution helps us to manage all of the operations across servers and different workstations."
"It is almost perfect for Microsoft products. It is not a very powerful tool, but it is okay for small sites and small businesses with Microsoft products. It is easy to use for backup and restore. It is good for backing up Microsoft servers such as Exchange and SharePoint servers."
"The most valuable feature is the recovery."
"Microsoft DPM is scalable."
"One of the bigger features and advantages of the solution is that it is easy to integrate with my RMM which is also N-able."
"The initial setup of N-able Cove Data Protection was very easy."
"For starters, this is one of few databases that allow us to backup MySQL databases, most others only support Microsoft SQL. This solution also has a very user-friendly interface accessed through a web browser. Additionally, backups can be easily configured through N-able Backup."
"The solution has reduced backup times by an immeasurable amount. Its backups are incremental, so you are only backing up data changes based on the last 24 hours or so. If you are also maintaining the stored images, the restores are also only incremental, happening in minutes. Whereas, with a lot of the other solutions that we have looked at, each time it goes to refresh the restore, then it has to build a completely new image. That takes forever. This solution also improves recovery time."
"What I like the most about it's the ease of use and the reliability that it has when copying information to the cloud."
"The ease of use and the console are great."
"We use a neat feature called VDR status, Virtual Disaster Recovery status. It only works on servers... It's automated. Once or twice a month it will virtually mount the backup and provide a screenshot and advise whether or not there have been any errors."
"The product is simple to use and manage. The customers have access to verify the backups."
"To evaluate the solution's abilities and its performance under demanding conditions, it is recommended to carry out a stress test."
"Microsoft DPM could improve if it was available in a public or private cloud."
"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."
"Compatibility and integration with other products needs improvement."
"Additional Hyper-V knowledge would be great."
"It needs portability for other vendors. It is good for backing up Microsoft servers, but it doesn't support third-party solutions such as Oracle Database. It depends on Microsoft Volume Shadow Copy, especially for Hyper-V, which has a lot of problems. They should enhance the Volume Shadow Copy functionality. Its reporting should also be better. Reporting is too weak in DPM."
"You have only a few settings and if you change them for some special configurations, it's very difficult."
"There is a very poor online user community in terms of people blogging about their experiences with DPM."
"The recovery side, the restore side, could be a little more optimized."
"A disaster recovery console would be an improvement for the product."
"N-able Cove Data Protection for Microsoft 365 is an area with shortcomings that need improvement."
"Having the licensing available for partners to be able to take advantage of testing without paying would make a big difference."
"This solution is not very good for image restores, mainly just files. The solution also does not allow you to enable or disable backups. Sometimes, our users will connect via mobile device and it will use their data to perform the backup. If they were able to enable and disable the backup, they would not have this issue."
"For the MSP side, they could have more of a "security user" that can go in and only see certain clients. If you give somebody access as a technician, they can see all the clients."
"Integration with a hybrid cloud is something that I found complicated."
"The only area that needs improvement is that it is a little bit difficult when you get into virtual machines. The initial deployment of Cove is a little tedious, not for standard machines, but when you get into specialty stuff, like Hyper-V."
Microsoft DPM is ranked 28th in Backup and Recovery with 17 reviews while N-able Cove Data Protection is ranked 7th in Backup and Recovery with 20 reviews. Microsoft DPM is rated 7.0, while N-able Cove Data Protection is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Microsoft DPM writes "Good for backing up, but the 2019 version lags". On the other hand, the top reviewer of N-able Cove Data Protection writes "Provides feature flexibility and modularity for our customers". Microsoft DPM is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Azure Backup, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), Commvault Cloud and Veritas Backup Exec, whereas N-able Cove Data Protection is most compared with Acronis Cyber Protect, Veeam Backup & Replication, Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365, Azure Backup and MSP360 Backup. See our Microsoft DPM vs. N-able Cove Data Protection 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.