We performed a comparison between Code42 Incydr 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."The solution is very stable. Very rarely do we have any issues with it. We don't have to deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We find it to be reliable."
"Low system overhead, setting retention policies, ease of use"
"t has a very user friendly status bar with common errors and has logs built in to the console so we can review the issues or status of CrashPlan."
"There are a couple of things. One of them is that they have what they call Incydr. Their detection and response solution to the insider threat area is called Incydr. That gives visibility to the clients that have widely dispersed employee bases due to work from home, or that had a dispersed workforce predating any of the work from home requirements. Even though they might not be inside the organization physically, they're inside the organization. It allows us to get some visibility into what people are doing, what the context is, and how to control what might be the potential for intellectual property theft or file exposure."
"Security tools: Being able to monitor data going in and coming off our endpoints. Seeing what it is and where it's going is awesome."
"It required very little ongoing maintenance once setup."
"Risk factors can be adjusted for all intricate details."
"Backup and recovery have been great, but I love having the ability to keep the hybrid type build which they offer."
"I like that it supports HPE UNIX servers since many backup solutions do not - this is the main reason why we chose this solution."
"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."
"The feature that was most valuable was that we could restore one mailbox and we could do different backups for different databases."
"It is a traditional backup model. If you talk about file server and the official Windows database, it's a stable product."
"The normal file system backup is easy to manage, and our success rate is quite high."
"It's user-friendly and not overly complicated to configure."
"I haven't experienced any crashes while using the solution...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"Deduplication implementation with CAPA is very good."
"Java, please get rid of Java."
"More security would be nice, I would love to be able to remotely brick a stolen laptop and it's hard disk drive (HDD)."
"Reporting could use an overhaul. It is very limited."
"In a couple of instances, we had a little bit of trouble in getting it distributed throughout the organization. We ultimately managed to do it, but they talk about it being a pretty simple process, and it became a little laborious. It would just turn away. The agents were not being distributed. It was just churning and churning and churning. When we were looking for specific categories of data, it was getting bogged down, but that was not even so much Code42, although some of it was their issue."
"What I think could be improved is how I get support."
"I would like to see more flexibility on privileges, perhaps create another kind of admin for regions. Also, I would like the ability to access logs without having to be on the actual device or a super-admin."
"I think one we can improve is the compression."
"The application, written in Java, required far more system resources on a Client than other solutions."
"VMware backup integration and cloud recovery is lacking."
"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."
"In general, you can say that Micro Focus Data Protector is behind in capabilities when compared with other backup solutions, such as Commvault, Symantec, NetBackup, but it is very strong for certain use cases such as array integration. We are using it in production even now. There should be some kind of cloud integration and archiving solutions. I think this is the area they need to focus on."
"It can occasionally be inaccurate in its backup/recovery time estimates."
"This solution is not scalable."
"Other tools seem to be easier to use."
"The new backup systems are using new mechanisms for the recovery phases; for example, VM, recovery and testing the backup before recovering it. These features are not available in Data Protector."
"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."
Code42 Incydr is ranked 30th in Backup and Recovery with 78 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 23rd in Backup and Recovery with 99 reviews. Code42 Incydr is rated 9.0, while OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Code42 Incydr writes "Provides comprehensive visibility and protection, helps in identifying the gaps in security, and comes with excellent onboarding support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". Code42 Incydr is most compared with Threat Detection, Investigation & Response (TDIR) Platform, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Morphisec and Backup and Restore for SharePoint & Microsoft Office 365, whereas OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, HPE StoreOnce and Symantec Data Loss Prevention. See our Code42 Incydr 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.
