We performed a comparison between Cohesity DataProtect 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."We are saving valuable datacenter rack space, which is critical as we evaluate co-location options."
"I found value in the instant recovery with DataMove. I found value in the protection group model for applying policies to VMs. And in the overall UI navigation and the way that the application is laid out in the web browser."
"Backups are quick and painless to set up."
"It has a lightning fast restore."
"With the ability to stage an entire lifecycle through versioning, integrated with AWS, it has made it possible to protect our corporation from end to end."
"Cohesity DataProtect is more of a unified solution, which is also trying to expand for ransomware protection."
"It works well with backup virtual machines and SQL services we have been using."
"The most valuable features are the rapid VM restores and the ability to quickly find files and download them directly to my desktop so that I can put them where I need them to be."
"The initial setup was relatively easy."
"The feature that was most valuable was that we could restore one mailbox and we could do different backups for different databases."
"Data Protector's granular recovery features make it easy for us to create and restore backups in an understandable and user-friendly manner. With granular recovery, any database or even just a database table can be restored at will."
"This solution is quite stable because we have only three users."
"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."
"The solution is easy to use."
"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."
"Micro Focus Data Protector's most valuable feature is its interaction with the fiber share. It is easy to use, we use it to back up without any problem to VTLs, and can use the Fiber Channel that is still the TCP."
"We would love to see direct compatibility with HPE Simplivity, which we also leverage."
"A little more documentation on standard faults would help, as new features are being released quite often."
"At times, you may click the wrong server or click too fast and accidentally restore a cluster of servers. It would be very helpful to have a cancel option under restores."
"We are waiting on the AIX agent to be released."
"Microsoft Exchange online mailbox backups would be fantastic."
"We have had our share of minor bugs over the past two years and a few bigger ones."
"I would like to see Cohesity have the ability to do a file level restore from a Windows server, which is storing data on dynamic disk."
"The product is still young and is continually improving. There have been a couple of buggy releases in the software that have caused us minor issues, so possibly some better QA before releasing would prove to be useful. We have also been inquiring about new app and functionality via the Marketplace that was teased months back but has yet to come to fruition."
"If you compare the solution with the same specific features and enhancements on another solution, Data Protector is expensive. This is especially true when compared to, for example, Veeam."
"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."
"It would be ideal if they could improve their level of support."
"The technical support is poor and should 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'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."
"Virtualization."
"We have a lot of requests for the Micro Focus team, particularly in terms of the Japanese data pattern, as it's not as good now. The Japanese data pattern accuracy of the Micro Focus Data Protector needs to be improved because there are a lot of false negatives and false positives. We are currently testing this and our product team has been communicating with the Micro Focus team."
Cohesity DataProtect is ranked 8th in Backup and Recovery with 69 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 100 reviews. Cohesity DataProtect is rated 9.0, while OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cohesity DataProtect writes "Easy to use, offers good scalability and responsive support ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". Cohesity DataProtect is most compared with Rubrik, Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and Veritas NetBackup, whereas OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, Symantec Data Loss Prevention and HPE StoreOnce. See our Cohesity DataProtect 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.
