We performed a comparison between Carbonite Server and Oracle Data Guard 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 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."
"I find the BMR/image and the recovery pieces are valuable."
"It seems reliable and easy to use."
"The solution is very stable."
"The solution is a free engine to help work with the container."
"It does not slow down your computer or use a lot of resources as it works."
"The efficiency and convenience are excellent."
"Easy verification of things is the most valuable feature."
"Another valuable feature is the possibility of backing up the database from the standby database instead of the primary database, to avoid backup process overhead in the primary system."
"Oracle Data Guard is scalable. I rate it a ten out of ten."
"The solution is quite stable. We haven't experienced any bugs, glitches, or crashes. We find it to be quite reliable."
"One of the most valuable features is real-time replication. The version we're using is reliable and easy to deploy."
"The most important feature is that if I want to test the database at the disaster recovery site, I can take a snapshot, test it, and then revert it back to the original state without needing to restore the complete database from the primary data center to the disaster recovery."
"Technical support is very good. If at any time we write a ticket, we get the appropriate answer on time."
"The most valuable features are the backup and restore. With this in place along with the clustering, the database is safe from hacking, hardware failure, power failures, and system crashes."
"We have not encountered any major challenges with replication. We were able to achieve near-real-time replication. Also, with the switchover failover, we were not getting any technical issues. It's a pretty stable product."
"The stability has room for improvement."
"They do not yet have USB recovery but they are adding it in coming releases."
"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."
"The Hyper-V backup has room for improvement."
"In the next release I would like to see an improvement in the auto failover option."
"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."
"It could be a little bit easier or faster to be able to access data files without having to download anything."
"The predominant issue lies in the communication link between the secondary and primary databases."
"They may need to include the monitoring and the alerting part in Data Guard."
"For every standby server you have, you must pay a licensing fee, which is the main disadvantage."
"The only difficult part is the cost factor, licensing. Another area of improvement is support."
"The deployment cost is expensive."
"Sometimes, the technical support team takes time to respond."
"For Italian medium-sized companies, the main challenge lies in the cost associated with licenses."
"It is a rather complex solution, so it could be more user-friendly."
Carbonite Server is ranked 35th in Backup and Recovery with 7 reviews while Oracle Data Guard is ranked 11th in Backup and Recovery with 31 reviews. Carbonite Server is rated 8.2, while Oracle Data Guard is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Carbonite Server writes "A simple, efficient, reliable product". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Data Guard writes "Ensures our databases stay in sync between the main and disaster recovery sites". Carbonite Server is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, Azure Backup, Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 and Acronis Cyber Protect, whereas Oracle Data Guard is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, Veritas NetBackup, Commvault Cloud and AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery. See our Carbonite Server vs. Oracle Data Guard 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.