We performed a comparison between Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is that it is journal-based and you don't have to replicate a lot of data."
"RecoverPoint replicates workloads fast."
"Point-in-time recovery and ease of deployment are valuable."
"It is a point-in-time restore, which is quite handy."
"One of the standout features of Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines is its real-time data protection capability."
"The workload can be moved directly if the disaster site is the main site."
"The solution is quite stable. We haven't experienced any kind of bug or glitch. We haven't experienced crashes."
"Continuous replication with lower RTO and RPO is the most innovative feature. Its tight integration with VMware for VMware VMs is also valuable."
"The ability for our users to restore data from the Snapshots is very valuable."
"The FlexClones make all the management easier for us."
"It is much easier to control data since we can run queries across all our platforms with just one solution. Not only that, we can also monitor all the platforms with Active IQ, where we can see all the alerts, messages, and space consumption through a single application. This is regardless if the data is on-prem or AWS. It is much more efficient."
"ONTAP has been very stable for us, specifically in the cloud environment. It allows us to have high availability as well as standalone systems if that's what we want within our specific workloads. Also, on-premise has been a very stable environment. We have very few outages and when we do, we work with support to get systems back online in a timely manner."
"We are definitely in the process of reducing our footprint on our secondary data center and all those snapshots technically reduce tape backup. That's from the protection perspective, but as far as files, it's much easier to use and manage and it's faster, too."
"Its features help us to have a backup of our volumes using the native technology of NetApp ONTAP. That way, we don't have to invest in other solutions for our backup requirement. Also, it helps us to replicate the data to another geographic location so that helps us to save on the costs of backup products."
"We're able to use the SnapMirror function and SnapMirror data from our on-prem environment into Azure. That is super-helpful. SnapMirror allows you to take data that exists on one NetApp, on a physical NetApp storage platform, and copy it over to another NetApp storage platform. It's a solid, proven technology, so we don't worry about whether data is getting lost or corrupted during the SnapMirror."
"ONTAP's snapshot copies and thin clones in terms of operational recovery are pretty useful in recovering your data from a time in a snapshot. That's pretty useful for when you have an event where a disaster struck and then you need to recover all your data. It's pretty helpful and pretty fast in those terms."
"It would be good to have a critical application on the customer side."
"It can have better integration. It would be good if, in addition to VMware VM, it can also support other hypervisors. I also want to see support for Oracle databases. As of now, it supports only SQL and Exchange. It would be good to also support other databases."
"In the next release of this software, I would like to see options that help to decrease the bandwidth required, such as compressing the data."
"I would like to have the HTML 5 interface working because it is currently not functioning with the VMware environment."
"The solution is not easy to use. It's actually quite hard. If it could be simplified it might be better for the end user."
"It should have features for recovering a group of virtual machines and full-scale security. For recovering all the VMs at once, they don't have a GUI option, and we have to use the command line."
"The solution could improve by being more easier to use. However, once you have used it for a while it becomes easier. Additionally, there could be better support and compatibility with management by having a command-line interface. This would be beneficial for the customers."
"The configuration process seems a bit challenging, and the installation takes a bit longer than expected."
"There is room for improvement in tier one support, especially with potential language barriers and communication challenges."
"We want to be able to add more than six disks in aggregate, but there is a limit of the number of disks in aggregate. In GCP, they provide less by limiting the sixth disk in aggregate. In Azure, the same solution provides 12 disks in an aggregate versus GCP where it is just half that amount. They should bump up the disk in aggregate requirement so we don't have to migrate the aggregate from one to another when the capacities are full."
"The only issue we had lately was that outside our VPC we could not reach the virtual IP, the floating IP. I heard that they have fixed that..."
"How it handles erasure coding. I feel it the improvement should be there. Basically, it should be seamless. You don't want to have an underlying hardware issue or something, then suddenly there's no reads or writes. Luckily, it's at a replication site, so our main production site is still working and writing to it. But, the replication site has stopped right now while we try to bring that node back. Since we implemented in bare-metal, not in appliance, we had to go back to the original vendor. They didn't send it in time, and we had a hardware memory issue. Then, we had a hard disk issue, which brought the node down physically."
"The DR has room for improvement. For example, we now have NetApp in Western Europe and we would like to back up the information to another region. It's impossible. We need to bring up an additional NetApp in that other region and create a Cloud Manager automation to copy the data... I would prefer it to be a more integrated solution like it was in the NetApp solution about a year ago. I would like to see something like AltaVault but in the cloud."
"I would want more visibility and data analytics where we can see anomalies within the shares within the GUI."
"I would like some more performance matrices to know what it is doing. It has some matrices inherent to the Cloud Volumes ONTAP. But inside Cloud Manager, it would also be nice to see. You can have a little Snapshot, then drill down if you go a little deeper."
"We've just been dealing with general pre-requisite infrastructure configuration challenges. Once those are out of the way, it is easy."
More Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines Pricing and Cost Advice →
Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines is ranked 10th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 10 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Software Defined Storage with 60 reviews. Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines is rated 8.0, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines writes "It replicates workloads fast, but it wastes resources". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines is most compared with VMware SRM, Zerto, Veeam Backup & Replication, Azure Site Recovery and Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service , whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Cloud Storage and Portworx Enterprise. See our Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP report.
We monitor all Disaster Recovery (DR) Software 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.
