We performed a comparison between Azure Backup 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."You can select the tiering for your backup and manage your cost."
"There is only one feature, and that is the backup."
"The solution helped us use R2 RBO to back up frequently."
"It is a stable solution...The product is worth the money you pay for it."
"Our client’s infrastructure is protected by the tool."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is that it is easy to create a backup by using Azure Backup. It also has a good user interface and nice features for sending notifications when any backup fails or there is a change in the status of virtual machines."
"It's stable."
"The most valuable features of Azure Backup for us are its flexible retention options and the ability to recover to a second region with geo-replication and read access."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The dashboards in Micro Focus Data Protector are very good. They are similar to the dashboards in Veeam Backup & Replication."
"I have used Micro Focus Data Protector for the file backup facilities. My primary use of the software is to backup file data."
"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 tool's most valuable aspect is its ease of management. It was not complex. In terms of features, I can mention a couple of things. For example, if you need to restore a VM, you can do it with multiple streams in OpenText Data Protector, which is an advantage over Commvault, from what I've noticed, having worked with multiple tools. Another thing is the Oracle backups; configuring Oracle backups is much easier in OpenText Data Protector."
"What we find most valuable in Micro Focus Data Protector is that it provides Japanese data protection, for example, it protects information such as the full Japanese name, address, etc."
"It's supports Unix, Linux, all of the OS's. It's very stable software."
"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."
"The compression ratio of the backup data should be improved."
"I believe more options could be available to understand better what's happening in the system. Additionally, automating the client updates and connector updates would be beneficial. Updating the connector from time to time can be challenging, and it could be made more transparent and straightforward for users. Moreover, another drawback lies in the time it takes to test full data backup recovery. Deploying a full recovery takes longer. We need to allocate a longer period for complete data recovery to establish the environment again."
"I would like to see better pricing."
"It would be beneficial to receive alert messages if something isn't configured correctly, for instance, if service principal names are missing, a message could prompt you to set them up."
"We faced some issues synchronizing the information in Azure when the storage was changed."
"My company faces a lot of difficulties in restoring any encrypted VM backup."
"In the next release, I would like to see the ability to back up to different cloud providers."
"It can be further improved by continuously meeting its compliance requirements."
"We face challenges with its stability."
"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 online backups of Office 365 have room for improvement. This is now available for the Exchange Online part of Office 365, but we're still waiting for SharePoint Online, Teams, etc. We know that it's coming, but it takes time."
"We're not satisfied with the robustness and stability of the software since Micro Focus took it in-house. The GUI is one thing they could improve. It's still a bit archaic. Data Protector needs a more functional, user-friendly GUI."
"We have so many specific technological cracks in Micro Focus, but we are not getting the features, facilities, or coordination between the global delivery centers and the R&D team that we need to express our ideas."
"The Micro Focus Data Protector support is not as good as Veeam Backup & Replication's support."
"Virtualization."
"I'm uncertain if it supports virtual machine backup and restoration. If they could enhance this aspect, they could gain more support from end users."
Azure Backup is ranked 7th in Backup and Recovery with 51 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 100 reviews. Azure Backup is rated 7.8, while OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Azure Backup writes "Straightforward to set up and manage and allows us to monitor all backups in one place". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". Azure Backup is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Rubrik, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup and Acronis Cyber Protect, whereas OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, Symantec Data Loss Prevention and HPE StoreOnce. See our Azure Backup 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.