We performed a comparison between Dell Avamar and NetApp SnapCenter 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."
"Dell EMC Avamar has many valuable features. It's very stable and it's easy to manage."
"The backup and recovery speed is very fast."
"The deduplication feature is the best aspect of the solution."
"Its stability and deduplication capabilities are most valuable."
"It's stable and offers good performance."
"It is a very complete product."
"It works quickly and is very stable."
"The backup process finishes very quickly."
"It has greatly improved our DR activity."
"We have been very satisfied with the technical support's help. Their knowledge level is great. For a noncritical question, they will get back to us within a day."
"It has very fast backup and can handle a huge amount of data. It also enables really fast recovery."
"The most valuable feature is that it's centralized. In the old SnapManager days, we had software for each server. Now, with a centralized system, we're able to manage all systems remotely, and all agents remotely, and update them remotely. That's a huge benefit for us."
"It's integrated with VMware vCenter. You can also see the backups there and you can do a restore completely out of vCenter."
"The way that it interconnects with VMware is really handy, because you can go right into your vSphere client, where you spend a lot of the day anyway, right-click on one of the VMs where you have backups running for however long, and you can restore either some files or restore the entire thing."
"The central pane view is the most valuable feature. You have one console where you can monitor all your jobs, as opposed to going to different vCenters."
"Performance can sometimes be affected when tools are utilized for tasks like backup or deep archiving."
"The UI is quite old. We've been using this UI since last year, and they haven't changed it. It would be better to update the UI periodically and create attractive dashboards from an administrative point of view."
"The interface could be more helpful for people."
"The solution could improve by having better integration and more flexibility."
"I think they could also move more towards cloud solutions. It already has some cloud tiering, but I think that could be more extensive. They should work with all cloud providers and I think in the future they will be on all cloud platforms."
"When you get down to doing certain things, such as somebody wants a particular file restored, the process by which you do that is stupid. You kind of have to know exactly where to look for in order to find it. Even on older backup products that I've used, I didn't have that kind of problem. If we were looking for a file with a particular kind of a name, the solution would find that file anywhere irrespective of where it resides within the backup system. So, we didn't have to know the name of the specific server, the specific timeframe, almost all the characters of the file name, and all kinds of data in order to find a file. In Avamar, we got to know these details. We've gone around and around with them on that, and their attitude seems to be that it is working just fine. There is nothing for them to improve. The organizational system of other products that I'm working with, such as Zerto and Cohesity, seems to be centered around the tasks that you would most commonly do and want to do, as opposed to we've laid it out in a really neat technical hierarchy."
"If you need to pull data out of it to offload to tapes, that's messy. You have a mechanism for it, but it is painful."
"The licensing model is not very flexible. Every time we upgrade our storage size, we need to upgrade the Avamar license."
"The compatibility with other manufacturers, like Oracle and Hyper-V, could be improved. I would like to see it be more compatible with other software."
"We would like to see more granular repording and reporting in bigger sets available in SnapCenter."
"I feel a little bit that during the whole process of putting this software into production we were like a beta program. It was full of bugs... For example, we had a problem with truncating our Exchange log files... It has improved over time."
"If it was possible to create backups on non-NetApp storage, that would be helpful."
"I'm waiting for SnapCenter for hybrid solutions. Right now, we only have SnapManager for hybrid. I need agents for that. People are looking to install SnapCenter in a SQL environment, but where they're running SQL on Hyper-V and using virtual files. Currently, we don't have support for hybrid."
"Some of the minor functionalities from SnapManager did not transfer over to SnapCenter. These should be added in future releases."
"The tool could be faster."
"The product lags in terms of availability."
Dell Avamar is ranked 12th in Backup and Recovery with 81 reviews while NetApp SnapCenter is ranked 40th in Backup and Recovery with 24 reviews. Dell Avamar is rated 7.6, while NetApp SnapCenter is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Dell Avamar writes "Stable, integrates well with other solutions, and has a good price, but its UI needs a refresh". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp SnapCenter writes "A stable solution that is mostly used by banks and financial institutions". Dell Avamar is most compared with Dell PowerProtect Data Manager, Veeam Backup & Replication, Dell NetWorker, Dell PowerProtect DP (IDPA) and Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), whereas NetApp SnapCenter is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Cohesity DataProtect, NetApp Cloud Backup and Commvault Cloud. See our Dell Avamar vs. NetApp SnapCenter 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.
