We performed a comparison between Carbonite Server and OpenText Data Protector 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."Easy verification of things is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is very stable."
"It does not slow down your computer or use a lot of resources as it works."
"The efficiency and convenience are excellent."
"The Granular Restore of SQL feature has been a lifesaver more times than I can count. One of the main reasons for looking at Carbonite was their support for platforms like AIX and AS/400 Series."
"It seems reliable and easy to use."
"I find the BMR/image and the recovery pieces are valuable."
"The solution is a free engine to help work with the container."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"I like that it supports HPE UNIX servers since many backup solutions do not - this is the main reason why we chose this solution."
"The reliability of HP Data Protector is the most valuable feature for us."
"It's supports Unix, Linux, all of the OS's. It's very stable software."
"Data Protector is quite simple and easy to deploy. The deployment is always the same. It's on a server, and the agents are deployed to the machines in a straightforward way. We have two engineers who deploy and manage all our backup solutions."
"Backup of SAP/Oracle -- they are more robust than the competition."
"It's user-friendly and not overly complicated to configure."
"The solution allows us to be able to backup and exchange directly, to backup Microsoft exchange."
"It could be a little bit easier or faster to be able to access data files without having to download anything."
"They do not yet have USB recovery but they are adding it in coming releases."
"The only thing that I would like to see improved is related to marketing. Currently, it is very difficult to find the right paper and stuff for me. Their marketing department should provide better information because currently, it is very difficult to find information on the internet. It was bought over by OpenText, and you won't be able to find a lot of information about this solution on their site. They should also provide training facilities for commercial purposes. Some of my colleagues recently went for pilot training, and they were technical. If I want to get trained, the training has to be more commercial. Currently, there is no such training for users like me."
"The support for object storage isn't quite there yet. Its public cloud support can be improved. I would love to see the public cloud support for object storage, and it would be great, but what I always hear from the folks at Carbonite is that in a lot of cases, it directly competes with their cloud offering. So, I don't know when or where that will go or if that will go anywhere, but we are hopeful to see something. The dashboard is a little outdated. If they gave it a facelift and put some better design around their dashboard, that would be tremendous. I generally care less about the visual aesthetics of an application as long as it does what it needed to do, which is true in the case of this solution. We also have the Microsoft 365 platform. Because they're two separate platforms, I have to log in to my Microsoft platform to manage it, and I have to log into my Carbonite server backup platform to manage it. Having these two coexist together in one management console is really what we're looking for, but we went for it knowing this. We also knew that there would be some integration coming down the road. So, we're again hoping to see some of that coming in 2021."
"The Hyper-V backup has room for improvement."
"In the next release I would like to see an improvement in the auto failover option."
"The stability has room for improvement."
"The solution is not intuitive enough. I think they should work on the user experience and the graphical interface. These can be a lot better."
"Other tools seem to be easier to use."
"In terms of what can be improved, I would say integrations with MongoDB. We use MongoDB and we need to go to scripts to do backups. We need more integrations."
"It has a lot of undeveloped functions like window searching and patent searching, and within the main backup processes like VMware and Microsoft Exchange. It's completely not user-friendly, and it has no built-in antivirus software. In my opinion, Micro Focus Data Protector is not an enterprise level solution."
"The new backup systems are using new mechanisms for the recovery phases; for example, VM, recovery and testing the backup before recovering it. These features are not available in Data Protector."
"In SAP restoration, we faced issues with changing the SIDs and changing the path for every backup object. It is quite a lengthy process to do that."
"The downside of the flexibility on offer is if you over-configure it, it may fail to function as some configurations may not match."
"Faster VEAgent Restores"
Carbonite Server is ranked 36th in Backup and Recovery with 7 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 99 reviews. Carbonite Server is rated 8.2, while OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Carbonite Server writes "A simple, efficient, reliable product". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". Carbonite Server is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, Oracle Data Guard, Azure Backup and N-able Cove Data Protection, whereas OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, HPE StoreOnce and Digital Guardian. See our Carbonite Server vs. OpenText Data Protector 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.