We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Aspera Managed File Transfer Alternatives and Competitors

Get our free report covering IBM, IBM, Amazon, and other competitors of Aspera Managed File Transfer. Updated: November 2021.
554,529 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Aspera Managed File Transfer alternatives and competitors

Venugopal Janga
Solutions & Data Architect at AstraZeneca
Real User
Provides end-to-end information, allows us to create configuration rules without scripting knowledge, and saves a lot of time

Pros and Cons

  • "Its ease of use is most valuable. Especially for the configuration of the rules, we don't need to have any scripting knowledge. Previously, we used to have a lot of custom scripts to transfer these files. Now, it's all managed in one place, and it's like a self-service. It's saving a lot of time for us."
  • "We need some capability for faster transfers and large file transfers. If we want to transfer a terabyte file, it is not capable of doing that right now. They say it is possible, but we are not able to do so with our environment."

What is our primary use case?

We have several use cases. We use it for exchanging files. We use it as a file or SFTP type of storage for B2B type of exchange with customers. 

We also use a lot of rules to transfer files from internal to external systems or from external to internal systems and archive the files. We use a lot of event rules. Our usage is heavy, and we have around 3,000 to 4,000 rules. We sometimes use it for PGP encryption. We also use it when zipping and unzipping files. These are all part of the rules.

In terms of deployment, it is on-prem. We have multi-region on-prem.

How has it helped my organization?

It is our primary managed file transfer capability. On an annual basis, we transfer terabytes of data through this. It has saved a lot of time. It is kind of a self-service, which saves time. Previously, IT involvement was required, which always took more time.

It secures sensitive data inside our internal networks so that only verified users have access. There is a module called the DMZ Gateway module that terminates any external connection so that we don't expose our data to the external network. It doesn't expose any of our data in the backend.

It provides a centralized platform for the management of file transfer operations. The data address is encrypted. So, the storage is only system-accessed. There is no way for people to access that storage. Everything is managed with user-based access and controls. We do have a lot of controls in place, and we have all the details of who is accessing the files.

It enabled us to decommission other solutions. We decommissioned Cyclone for several reasons. The main reasons were that Globalscape was cheaper, and we could cover all the use cases.

It allows us to use automated scripts. This functionality is very important for us because sometimes, we can't do with out-of-the-box functionality, and we need to do some custom scripting. The good thing is that they're allowing VBScript, Powershell, and I think they even allow us to use Amazon CLI.

Our operations have definitely become more efficient because of the automation. We can see a lot of alerting. We can see everything in one place in a dashboard. That has improved operational efficiency a lot. There is still a lot of scope for improvement, but as compared to previously, we have a significant improvement.

It connects to popular ICAP servers to perform antivirus and data loss prevention functions. We have SSL-based, certificate-based management, and we have user-based authentication. We only open the HTTPS port to the outside world. We don't open any other ports. From Globalscape, we connect to the outside or external connection through SFTP or Amazon S3. We have different policies.

It has enabled us to reassign resources who were writing custom file transfer scripts or compiling file transfer audit reports to other tasks. We are definitely able to reuse some bandwidth from this.

What is most valuable?

Its ease of use is most valuable. Especially for the configuration of the rules, we don't need to have any scripting knowledge. Previously, we used to have a lot of custom scripts to transfer these files. Now, it's all managed in one place, and it's like a self-service. It's saving a lot of time for us.

The auditing module is another valuable feature. We have subscribed to the auditing module, and it gives end-to-end information about who downloaded and who uploaded a file. It provides all that information about who is using a file.

Its security features are good enough. In case of any failures, there are a lot of out-of-the-box reports.

It is designed for Windows, which is important for us because we have a lot of use cases around LAN. They will also come with support for Linux.

What needs improvement?

We want to have some capability for cloud-based. They seem to have purchased a different company recently, and they seem to have a cloud-based option. 

We also need some capability for faster transfers and large file transfers. If we want to transfer a terabyte file, it is not capable of doing that right now. They say it is possible, but we are not able to do so with our environment.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for almost 10 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Because of the on-prem deployment, we saw several hiccups here and there in terms of stability, but overall, it is okay. It also depends on the capacity and the bandwidth. There are also several other factors. From the cloud perspective, I think it is okay.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We can add more nodes. So, based on the type of load, we upgraded and added a couple of nodes in the EMEA region. Overall, it is scalable.

We have three regions. We manage 24/7 with five to six resources across the regions. From the solution perspective, we don't need to increase the size of the platforms, but we need to optimize overall operations. We are spending a lot of time on patching and upgrading. So, if we go for one instance of cloud, the effort will reduce.

How are customer service and support?

Their technical support is good. There are two or three levels of support. Recently, they have assigned a Technical Account Manager (TAM). From the response perspective, overall, I'd rate them an eight out of 10.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were using Cyclone. We switched because of two factors. One was the size. There were too many servers, and it was very less from the cost perspective. It also covered a lot of use cases, such as event rules.

How was the initial setup?

It was straightforward. It was a simple installation. We had some internal validation processes for deployment. Otherwise, Its implementation takes a couple of days. If you have all the servers ready, it is quick to install.

What about the implementation team?

We worked with Globalscape. Globalscape helped us, and their architect confirmed our deployment options. It was a simple process.

What was our ROI?

I don't have an exact number. We definitely pay one-tenth of the cost as compared to our previous solution. That's a significant difference, and it is covering all the bases.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We are paying around 30K per year.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We tried IBM Aspera. It is for big data use cases. We evaluated it for terabyte type of data, but we didn't move forward with that. I think we've got it for one year but in some other group.

Aspera's price was high. Globalscape was one solution covering all the use cases, and that was a key factor for us. From a support perspective, we didn't want multiple vendors for each use case. Globalscape already had a module for our use case. That was the reason for going with Globalscape.

What other advice do I have?

I would definitely recommend this solution. Being in the middleware space, I work on several other technologies within our group. Oracle has an MFT, and Amazon is also planning to have the managed file transfer, but I recommend Globalscape. It is in the top quadrant from Gartner's Quadrant perspective, and they have recently acquired a lot of small companies in different areas. They are okay in terms of the product roadmap.

We don't use Globalscape to automate the submission of regulatory documentation, but there are connections to FDA and CFDA. We use this as a transport tool but not as a submission tool. We do have the FDA and email connections.

The automation of file transfers has reduced the workload but it depends on multiple factors. It also depends on the bandwidth part. There are a lot of features, but when we are transferring across our client base, it can be a little bit slow. It is based on the type of protocol. They have some modules, but we haven't yet used those UDP-based transfers.

Its connection to popular ICAP servers helps inspect content for sensitive information, such as credit cards, and it has some advanced security modules, but we never used them. It automatically does advanced checksum and several other redundancy checks.

As a solution, I would rate it a nine out of 10. There are a few areas they need to improve on. They recently came up with the cloud option and different deployment options, but we haven't used those yet. We need to use those options.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
Get our free report covering IBM, IBM, Amazon, and other competitors of Aspera Managed File Transfer. Updated: November 2021.
554,529 professionals have used our research since 2012.