We performed a comparison between Dell Avamar and NetApp FAS Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Deduplication Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The product is good for backups."
"We've found the product to be stable."
"Every product is good and bad, but its claim to fame is that it is scalable. We're doing more than 3,000 VMs. Every single night a complete image backup to disks and replication are easily done in under four hours."
"It's a good solution."
"We sell Avamar with Data Domain. Data Domain and Avamar work really well together and their compression ratios are very high compared to Veeam, Commvault, and all the other backup software on the market."
"The solution is very stable."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The stability of Dell EMC Avamar is very good."
"Using the built-in Snapshots and SnapMirror technology, we were able to have better working data protection locally and off-site."
"The initial setup was so straightforward. It was well-documented."
"Snapshot, deduplication, and compression features are valuable."
"We can manage our applications from a single dashboard."
"The migration of the volume on the cluster is very useful and easy to use."
"Adaptive balancing is a valuable feature."
"It's a stable product. No issues there."
"The tool's most valuable features are ease of use, ease of access, expandability, availability, and performance. NVMe drives have improved their performance."
"It lacks support for certain plugins, like SAP HANA, for example."
"Setting up Avamar wasn't so easy, and we had a partner doing the installation for us. Though it was hard at first, it's getting better. The main difficulty was finding plugins for Oracle Database. It took some time to open a ticket with Dell, but everything was fine after that."
"Interfaces need to be improved."
"When we used the solution, it was still new, and so the customer service/technical support was not the best."
"The user interface still needs to have some level of improvement. It could be more user-friendly and intuitive."
"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."
"I would like to see better integration with third-party applications and platforms."
"In my opinion, the user interface and the user friendliness could be improved. The specific thing I have in mind are the graphics, which are not quite user-friendly."
"The user interface could be improved."
"The WAFL is slow."
"Cost is always a factor. Some people choose EMC or Dell because they perceive NetApp as being more expensive."
"They should add new features to the product."
"The product must support more drives."
"The one aspect of the solution that's negative for us is also more unique to us due to the fact that we did a MetroCluster. The tiebreaker piece that does the monitoring of the two different locations, and determines if one is not talking to the network normally (or if it's truly down) is a little difficult. It feels like it was not designed from the beginning to fit well into the other pieces. It feels like it was thrown in at the last minute and it is not smooth."
"We have some experience with older equipment end-of-life. For example, when warranty support stops or updates stop – it can be frustrating. Not all clients can buy a new filer every year or two, and NetApp ending support a bit quickly can be a concern."
"NetApp is costly when compared to Dell."
Dell Avamar is ranked 3rd in Deduplication Software with 81 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 5th in Deduplication Software with 97 reviews. Dell Avamar is rated 7.6, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. 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 NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers good performance and ". 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 NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), NetApp AFF, HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and IBM FlashSystem. See our Dell Avamar vs. NetApp FAS Series report.
See our list of best Deduplication Software vendors.
We monitor all Deduplication Software 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.
