Using a subscription-based license has been advantageous. We've been able to significantly reduce costs by tailoring our spending to our actual usage. This is a stark contrast to the earlier model with its prohibitively high fixed-price licenses.

Commvault Cloud is perhaps the best value for our money that I have seen in a backup product.

The pricing falls somewhere in the middle of what the market offers. It's not overly expensive. The licensing model is quite good. Everything is included under it.

Commvault Backup & Recovery is priced fairly, and its performance-to-cost ratio is also better than fair. I am not here trying to figure out how to get Commvault to reduce their cost by ten percent because I am satisfied.

The pricing is fairly in line with the other products we've compared it with recently. We do spend more on it than we did in our Backup Exec days, but it's competitive with the other best-in-class data protection platforms. There are other systems that are less expensive that just do basic backup, but when you're talking about full data management, Commvault is hard to beat. Remember that low price doesn't mean low cost, a cheaper product may end up costing you valuable person hours or slower recovery times.

The licensing model changes can sometimes be confusing. Our value-added reseller does a great job of explaining the changes to us and preparing us for what's good and bad and what we need to be aware of during those changes. If we were dealing directly with Commvault, it might be a little more confusing than it needed to be.

It is quite expensive when compared to other applications in the market.

Its license is completely based on workload capacity. If I buy a license for 100 terabytes, I can back up anything. I can back up any platform, technology, or application, which is an advantage. Previously, we had to buy an agent for a particular application, and the cost was different for each agent. Now, the cost is completely based on the storage capacity. The license for one terabyte can cost around $1,700 for backing up anything from your environment.

Commvault's pricing model and pricing structure were initially confusing, but once we worked more closely with the company, we were able to transition to a subscription license that saved us a lot of money. Commvault had some problems with their costing and pricing initially, but the subscription model is a good one, and the pricing is fair.

I used the free trial to test it. That was our proof of concept. I had the servers up and running by the middle of the day. I think I started it some time around breakfast. It took a couple of hours. It was really simple.

Hands down, Metallic provides us with more predictable costs for our backup requirements. You are getting what you pay for. If they are charging you X amount of dollars at that point, that is what you are going to pay. So far, I have not seen any hidden costs or any kind of gotchas. It is pretty cut-and-dry. They will let you know, "Hey, you are going to use our storage and it will cost you this much. You are going to use your storage, then we are going to charge you this much to backup." What they told us they were going to charge us is exactly what they are charging us now for the next two and a half years.

One of the most interesting aspects is that the licensing model can be modified. We're paying for our licensing by the client, as opposed to the size of the footprint of the backup, which decreased our cost by about 20 percent.

There are multiple costs involved. We have the hardware, the tape drives, and the storage that our backup targets use. We use non-recommended storage, which is not as robust as what Commvault recommends, but we're able to make it work. That saves a lot of money on storage and its maintenance.

We like that there is no extra cost for SharePoint, Teams, or OneDrive. It is all mimicking Microsoft's model. Every user has one terabyte of space. When users start using OneDrive, everybody has one terabyte that will be backed up included in the price.

Metallic provides us with more predictable costs for our backup requirements. They charge us on a model that we understand. We understand the pricing model a little bit differently. 

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

Based on the customer's needs, their pricing and model is very confusing sometimes. You need to check with their sales to make sure you are getting the right pricing on whatever you are using. I know that they have simplified a lot regarding the licensing model nowadays, but it is good to always double check and make sure it has everything that you really need.

We pay for the license every year. Initially, it was around $100,000. Now, it is down to $30,000 to $40,000.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

The pricing depends on the functionality you require. For example, Office 365 is priced correctly because you have everything in one package, including the license for backup and storage. It is very attractive for the middle market, so I would rate it a seven out of ten, where one is the cheapest and ten is very expensive.

But for some projects, we may need to buy additional backup and storage for the retention period, making it more expensive. However, seven is good for me. Also, we could consider integrating with other cloud providers for secondary backup and storage to store backups. We only have Azure, OCI, or RWAIS, but exploring other options that offer better prices would be interesting.

Commvault is more expensive than Veeam, which is the reason that we are changing to Veeam for cloud environments.

The pricing is very competitive. When Commvault knows you are comparing it with the other leading providers, they are ready to compromise on pricing. But you have to make sure you get a long-term commitment on the pricing. Otherwise, when you have a future expansion, they will take advantage of it.

It is a little too high. I would like to get more of a consumption model or more of a periodic true-up type of model that is more friendly to the ups and downs that you may have in your data instead of locking into multi-year agreements.

The solution is bundled with hardware licensing. If I want to increase the hardware, I have to buy exactly the same because it's based on the core hardware license. We cannot tell discount because we have an NDA signed with Commvault because of my academic license. The solution is more expensive than NetBackup and Veeam but cheaper than Rubrik.

We are paying on a yearly basis and it comes out to about $3.80 a user per month.

There are no other costs for the specific features that I have. If I was to use server backups with them, there would be an additional cost per terabyte of storage, based on my storage targets, or an infrastructure cost if I was using it to target on-ground storage stuff. But because I'm using the platform that includes storage for the Office 365 backup exclusively, there is no additional cost.

The other products I was looking at wanted to charge me anywhere between $10 to $15 per person and I would have to do storage on top of that. That means I would be paying by the terabyte if I was putting the storage in the cloud or having to purchase hardware on-premises to do so. With the Office 365 offering from Metallic, at the price point we got it at, it was perfect. They knew exactly what the market needed and they hit their marks.

Originally, it was really attractive when we were deployed on-prem. They have since built and moved it to the cloud, which I am a big fan of. I have all my security tools in the cloud, but it came with a significant increase in pricing. We ended up negotiating a better price because we have been a long-term customer, and I have also spoken on their behalf quite a few times, but if I have to buy it at its current rate, I am not sure if I would be a customer. It is expensive.

I’m happy with the pricing of the product.

The solution is licensed based on the number of objects that we're going to back up, and that's a known quantity. As a result, we get predictable costs for our backup requirements. The actual storage on the back end of the system is included and that means we don't have to plan for any storage growth or changes there. We just have to plan for the number of employees that we have. That makes it very predictable.

In this product, the cost-benefit is very high.

I think only large enterprises are willing to pay for it because they charge by data volume. And I think some other companies won't use this, maybe it costs more money.

The pricing has improved. It is simplified compared to the way that it was a few years ago. It is fairly straightforward and pretty easy to articulate to customers, which is handy. 

Pricing is quite expensive, though I don't exactly know the prices. It is expensive compared to other products because it's for an enterprise setup and not for a small setup. On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the highest price, I rate the pricing an eight.

The cost of an integrator license is moderate and its features cover most customers. Application features for government or compliance require a separate license. 

The cost for Commvault is very expensive, even support is very expensive. The full cost of the solution is 50,000 INR per year, which includes 20 VM backups, server data backup, and 200 desktop and laptop agent licenses.

They have recurring support changes.

They should reduce the support and license costs so anyone could start using Commvault. Due to its cost, customers are reluctant to use Commvault.

The first time, when building infrastructure, the cost is quite high.

It is not the cheapest solution. I think the pricing is fair for mid-side customers. It is between all the other options.

Costs are fairly predictable because you pay per user. It is quite easy to do the calculation.

If you have different use cases in the 365 tenant, I am not sure that the product gets the full agility of those licenses. If I want to do backups for just some of the users, I still need to do a backup for the full SharePoint and have a full license for all of the users who use SharePoint. If there could be a higher variety of license type for this that reduces the cost, that would be a nice functionality.

The price of Commvault HyperScale X is a lot higher than competitors. As a government institution, we have annual costs. We made a budget for one year in advance. It was difficult to calculate the other solution's costs because each solution has another way of licensing. The solution is expensive but it is very good and we know the good quality we will be receiving.

There were not any additional costs. The new storage, software, and support were inside the price.

Compared with other backup technologies, Commvault is a bit more costly, but we are satisfied with the support, the services, and the features that we get with Commvault.

We are using the capacity-based license and have a total of 10 CommCells. In the license file, we can clearly see what kinds of workloads can be backed up.

Commvault's license fee is per server-based for physical machines. For virtual machines, it's a 10 VM one-pack solution. Avamar is just a license for storage capacity-wise, around 8TB to 16TB. It's not based on how many servers you backup. In a price comparison, definitely Avamar is the winner.

The pricing is far better than we had in the past. The license for Dell EMC was not too expensive, but the storage, given that Dell EMC is based on data domains, was pretty expensive.

The licensing costs are determined on a yearly basis. It might be around $40,000 or $50,000. There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

It's not cheap but it's not too expensive. We have a yearly contract for support from Commvault. Of course, even for that, we need to go through a public procurement process, because there are a few Commvault partners in our country. Our yearly cost is around €20,000.

There are no additional costs to the standard licensing fees. If we want to add a new feature or to buy new licenses for new clients, of course we have to pay more. The cost is based on the number of users and the amount of data. They sell it per terabyte.

We have a contract with Commvault through our local partner so that every year we enter into a new contract for the coming year for updating, upgrading, and support. That enables us to download and deploy every new version, service pack, and hotfix. The latest one is service pack 18 so that is what we are using. That was part of our requirements for a solution: to have the possibility of continuing with it, rather than buy it once and then stop updating. Our goal was to always have the newest version and to have support for tickets.

Whether the licensing model is cost-efficient depends. Government has needs that are different from the private sector. Banks and financial institutions, for example, have other needs. It depends on how they work with backups. Do they need a backup restored in five minutes or in five hours? For my system, if a computer doesn't work one day, it's not a big deal. But in a bank, if you cannot get your money in five minutes you get mad. But overall, the pricing is okay. For what you get, it's a good price compared to the market.

The product is cheap. It is an integrated solution. I rate the pricing a two out of ten on a scale of one to ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive. We have to pay for the implementation services.

I rate the product’s pricing a five out of ten.

I rate Metallic 10 out of 10 for affordability. It's highly cost-effective compared to other products I've used. I pay a monthly fee of 57 rands per user as a reseller and sell it at a markup to my client. 

Inside the 30-day trial period, you do not need a license. After that, you need to pay yearly.

The prices are pretty high. It's quite expensive. 

The solution's pricing is competitive. It depends on the number of users required and if any discounts are leveraged. Bigger volumes will lead to bigger discounts. 

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten, with ten being a good price and one a high price. Depending on the client, they have different types of licensing.

HyperScale X is expensive. 

It is cheaper than NetBackup, but its price can be lower. If a good solution can be cheaper, it is always an advantage. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

The tool is affordable. I rate the pricing a six out of ten. Implementation requires additional costs because we need Commvault Professional Services.

It may be a high price, however, the quality of the product gives it an acceptable value.

We work with Commvault and a partner on our environment needs according to capacity, licensing, pricing, components, modules, etc. Additional costs depend on your backup needs.

It does reduce storage costs in the cloud. At the same time, if you're trying to back up a Cloud application, it adds more cost. If we run data verification drops like an extra or Cloud data, the data that's available in three containers, it adds a lot of cost. However, when we just do a backup to the Cloud, it sells a lot, but it doesn't run a verification.

At the same time, Commvault came out with MTSS Cloud that they partner with Azure, and that really saves money for any customers. Like a 20 to 30% savings when they use MTSS. Commvault licensing changed a lot in the last five years. I saw four times they change their licensing model.

It is a bit more than other products, but when you consider the time savings, it is saving money.

As I once heard from a car salesman in California: every car has its girlfriend / boyfriend.

Here it is more or less the same, for each case it is necessary to study which is the best backup tool, basing ourselves first on the technical aspect and then on the financial one.

The solution is expensive. The subscription is based on a monthly basis. There are additional costs that vary depending on the size of the backup.

What we had before was that each user needs to be licensed. We purchase the required number of licenses and are priced accordingly per license. This pricing is independent of the backup data. Now, Metallic has changed, and the pricing is either per user or per license, in addition to the amount of backed-up data.

The cost was one of the reasons we went with Commvault, however, that said, I can't give exact pricing.

The solution is highly-priced.

Commvault's price is quite high. You have to pay for the licenses and the hardware you need for the Commvault environment. If you don't have all the hardware, you have to buy it, which can cost a few million. In the end, it's vital to protect our data, so the price isn't an issue. However, it can be a hard sell to your top management. They say, "Well, you have your NetApp snapshot technology. Why go for something else when that is doing the job? Why should you spend a few million to implement another backup solution?" 

If you can find a decent reason, then it's great. With the pandemic, it's becoming difficult to justify expenses like this. Everybody is afraid about the impact and wants to avoid extra costs as much as possible.

The solution is worth the money. Depending on the customer’s feasibility, they pay for the license every year or every three years. The evaluation is given for 30 to 90 days, which has to be paid.

I looked at this at the beginning of the year and I don't remember what the prices were for all the other services, but I thought that Metallic's was fair. It was also highly rated, which was even more important than cost because I need a reliable, secure, backup method.

Our deployment is primarily on-prem. We are trying to assess the cloud capabilities but it looks like the cloud is more expensive if you want to have the whole infrastructure.

There is now a subscription based licence option that, depending on your environment, could offer a more efficient method to licence the solution if you are OPEX cost driven rather than CAPEX. This was not a concern for our deployment and we implemented on perpetual licences which had more commercial value to our business.

The pricing is mid-range. It's not too high, not too low.

Capacity licensing is very good with Commvault.

The price is a little bit high.

I cannot give the exact pricing for Commvault Complete Data Protection because I was not involved in the purchasing process. Still, my company purchased through a reseller, so the pricing may differ.

The license for Commvault HyperScale X is paid annually.

I prefer selling Commvault to enterprises. It's appropriate for a company that has a headquarters plus four or five offices. It isn't ideal for a small business. The price is okay if you have the budget of a large enterprise. Aside from the license, the only additional cost is cloud fees if you are using cloud infrastructure. 

I don't recall the exact cost of licensing. However, I rate the prices a ten out of ten.

The license is paid on an annual basis and the price is reasonable.

The solution isn't the cheapest. It's also not the most expensive. It's basically somewhere in the middle. However, it's a fine price. It's what you would expect to pay for a full solution. That said, for some environments, it could be considered a bit expensive.

The licensing is very simple, and one of the advantages of this solution. They have a subscription-based license, as well as a perpetual option, but that is all they have. It is easy to understand. There are no additional costs beyond the standard licensing fees.

The licensing fees depend on the size of the solution and the kinds of workloads. There are hardware costs, software costs, licensing, subscription, and support costs. Support contracts can be for one, two, or five years. All of this needs to be considered.

Overall, this solution provides value for the money. In my experience, compared to solutions like Veritas and Veeam, while they do have their technical pluses and minuses, Commvault can save you on average 40% initially, and then 20 to 25% annually.

The solution is expensive, but it is worth the money. When we choose a good quality product, we must pay for it. We should not expect a good quality product at a lower price.

There is a bit of cost involved with signing up the entire solution. It's not a cheap solution.

If budget allows using the per socket license and not the agent based with per GB counter for Dedup is the way to go.

It was not very popular because of its previous cost, but they have been working on the pricing, and now anyone can afford to use Commvault. They changed the modeling criteria for their pricing. Previously, there was only the capacity modeling based on your content capacity. In this case, they would give you a license and you would have to pay it. Now, most of the environment is virtualized so you can have the best CPU, VMs, etc. You buy whatever you need and pay for what you need.

I'm purely technical. I don't deal with the licensing aspect of the product.

I'd rate the product four out of five in terms of affordability. From what I understand, it's not overly expensive. 

We bought the solution and the agreement was for three years. We simply pay in installments for three years. We'll do the payment at the beginning of every year. 

I don't know much about the pricing and licensing, but I do know it is very expensive.

Commvault's licensing is very flexible.

Commvault licensing is a perpetual license so only the support is being renewed yearly.

I rate the product’s pricing a seven out of ten.

The solution's cost is reasonable. I rate its pricing a nine.

Commvault changed their model to make it easier for partners and customers to understand. Before there were 16 licenses for one area but now they've made it easier to work.

It is not expensive. The prices are competitive. Other vendors are now adjusting their prices to compete with Commvault. Compared to other competitors and vendors the pricing is fair. 

The solution is expensive. However, there are no additional costs involved. I rate the pricing a five out of ten. 

In our country, hardware solutions are very expensive. But the product is very competitive for pricing in some countries because it is possible to set up Commvault hardware with other vendors like HP, Lenovo, or SuperMicro using its certification.

The price is not cheap, but when you compare it to the other products they are all almost the same level in terms of price.

Some years ago, Commvault had a huge price. Now, it is cheaper than Veeam.

It's also available per VM license or per socket or per storage capacity and you can mix licenses. You can have some VM licenses and some socket licenses, for example.

Some of our customers say that Commvault is a very expensive solution, but Commvault has many features that the competitors don't have. It is not a good choice for a small or medium business, but it is a good choice for enterprise businesses.

We have a backup storage sizer, so we know the amount of storage needed. If the backup storage is too large, we can resize the policy and size the backup volumes and adjust the licensing scheme.

Sometimes Commvault can be costly. On the other hand, you need to consider other use cases, verticals, and segments in the market, not just the price. But I think that those are the disadvantages of the factory features that have some room for improvement. The product is excellent.

The cost of implementing or supporting Commvault can be high. You need to pay attention to the licensing. It's imperative to do careful planning regarding the workflows you will support, and which kinds of solutions or vehicles you're going to deploy because there could be some surprises down the road. 

I think that's one of the main weaknesses of the product: it might be costlier than the competition. Of course, it's not always the case, but sometimes it could be pricier than the competition. That can sometimes be a barrier to implementing the product in certain regions and specific verticals or certain kinds of customers that are very cost-sensitive. Lowering the price is essential for Commvault to gain traction in other segments, and we have traditional companies reducing their prices. It would be good to see them more in an FNB environment, but the costs are too high for some customers.

One of the issues with backup vendors is that they overprice, or overvalue their products.

Metallic is an affordable solution.

The tool is cost-effective.

Commvault has advanced its licensing in the last year with its complete licensing solution. The complete license gives us options for all the features. Commvault does not license based on storage or the management components. It can integrate with any storage vendor. That means that when we are out of storage and need more, we can integrate without additional licensing.

In my opinion, Commvault needs to reduce the licensing cost by 20 to 40 percent to make it cost-efficient.

Our cost is around $20,000 per month. The previous year, it was around $30,000 per month. It now costs less because Commvault changed the licensing type for providers. It's not that we are using Commvault less, but it's just due to a licensing change.

The price could always be lower. I do not have the exact pricing information but I know it's not cheap.

Commvault is quite high in terms of pricing and licensing.

The pricing is quite reasonable and more than fair. It's not overly expensive.

Know which type of data you are going to backup/protect and select the most appropriate bundle for you.

Commvault is too expensive. 

Its cost is reasonable, but anybody else can do better benchmarking.

The solution is expensive in comparison to similar solutions.

Licensing fees are billed on a yearly basis.

The solution is not cheap. However, for an enterprise-level solution, the price is comparable to other competitors. It would not be affordable for small to medium size organizations.

In India, this is a very expensive product.

The pricing for the solution used to be very expensive, but over the last year or so it's been lowered. 

Evaluate different licensing models before buying. It can save a lot of money.

Can't provide such advice. It highly depends on initial environment and estimated growth for year and more.

New licensing is easy and affordable.