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."The solution is a free engine to help work with the container."
"Easy verification of things is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"Technical support handled all our issues quickly and effectively."
"It seems reliable and easy to use."
"The efficiency and convenience are excellent."
"I find the BMR/image and the recovery pieces are valuable."
"The solution is very stable."
"The solution is easy to use."
"What I like the most about this solution is that I can change and access the Oracle backup file."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The solution allows us to be able to backup and exchange directly, to backup Microsoft exchange."
"Integration with HP storage is a very strong point for Micro Focus Data Protector. It is the best solution for general operations like backup and restore. Zero downtime backup (ZDB) is one very important feature, which is basically the integration with the storage array. It is a very strong feature. We're using storage with snapshots with this integration."
"Deduplication implementation with CAPA is very good."
"The reliability of HP Data Protector is the most valuable feature for us."
"If you have an idea of what you are doing, it's very flexible and very stable."
"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 The dashboard is a little outdated.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 stability has room for improvement."
"In the next release I would like to see an improvement in the auto failover option."
"They do not yet have USB recovery but they are adding it in coming releases."
"The Hyper-V backup has room for improvement."
"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."
"It could be a little bit easier or faster to be able to access data files without having to download anything."
"VMware backup integration and cloud recovery is lacking."
"The challenge is that we can't restore a single file from the VM in the data process when we do VM backups. But with Commvault, you can restore a single file even if you have a VM snapshot package. That's one drawback of this tool. When we do VM backups, it should help us browse the VMs to restore a single file instead of doing the complete VM restore."
"I do not think that this solution is relevant in the current IT market. They have not upgraded their features and functionalities which makes it difficult for them to remain competitive."
"The graphical interface needs to be improved."
"Micro Focus Data Protector must improve its overall evolution record. They need to focus on hardware based instant recovery, client recovery, and cloud ability. Now there is no cloud ability."
"We face challenges with its stability."
"Microfocus needs to build a partnership with other vendors in addition to HPE as far as cloud consolidation of backups."
"The scheduler setup could be better. We are facing some issues scheduling the job based on our requirements."
Carbonite Server is ranked 36th in Backup and Recovery with 7 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 100 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, Veritas NetBackup, Commvault Cloud, 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.
