We performed a comparison between Azure Backup 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 MARS agent makes it easy to use."
"I like that it's a simple system."
"I have no issues with the stability at all. So I don't necessarily care about the stability of the product. I look more at whether or not can I recover. And I haven't had a failed recovery yet. I've got no failed recoveries of all my years."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"It is easy to schedule backups."
"It is a stable solution...It is a highly scalable solution."
"We are happy with this product and have not found any issues while using it."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Backup is the native backup capabilities."
"The tool's most valuable aspect is its ease of management. It was not complex. In terms of features, I can mention a couple of things. For example, if you need to restore a VM, you can do it with multiple streams in OpenText Data Protector, which is an advantage over Commvault, from what I've noticed, having worked with multiple tools. Another thing is the Oracle backups; configuring Oracle backups is much easier in OpenText Data Protector."
"Data Protector's GUI is the most useful feature."
"The initial setup was relatively easy."
"It's supports Unix, Linux, all of the OS's. It's very stable software."
"If you have an idea of what you are doing, it's very flexible and very stable."
"Integration with HP storage is a very strong point for Micro Focus Data Protector. It is the best solution for general operations like backup and restore. Zero downtime backup (ZDB) is one very important feature, which is basically the integration with the storage array. It is a very strong feature. We're using storage with snapshots with this integration."
"This solution is quite stable because we have only three users."
"The most valuable feature is the capability to back up our SQL server."
"On-prem can be complex to set up but the cloud is simple."
"The solution is still in its infancy; it's not a mature product yet."
"I once tried restoring a Linux environment, and the size of the Linux VM or the data disk was really huge. It took a really long time to restore the environment and send the data from the storage to the disk. It took around 25 to 30 minutes, which was much longer than I anticipated. They can improve the duration of such restore operations. In the next release, it would also be good if they could reduce the duration for transferring the data from their storage to the actual storage while creating a virtual machine. They can reduce the duration or increase the data transfer rate."
"I would like to see better integration with more products, and more services."
"We faced some issues synchronizing the information in Azure when the storage was changed."
"In Avamar, the file-based restores are very quick and fast, whereas, in Azure Backup, VM restore is super easy, but if I have to do a file or a folder restore, I have to mount the entire VM image. I have to wait for some time for it to be mounted, and then I have to go inside and then check the file and copy it somewhere. It's a bit of a manual process, whereas in Avamar, you can directly select a file and folder, and it'll recover with whatever permissions you want."
"Azure Backup's licensing model is very challenging because it doesn't give a clear picture."
"They need to improve the frequency of the backup. You can only backup one to three times a day. It would be better to back up continuously throughout the day."
"VMware backup integration and cloud recovery is lacking."
"Micro Focus Data Protector must improve its overall evolution record. They need to focus on hardware based instant recovery, client recovery, and cloud ability. Now there is no cloud ability."
"The scheduler setup could be better. We are facing some issues scheduling the job based on our requirements."
"If you compare the solution with the same specific features and enhancements on another solution, Data Protector is expensive. This is especially true when compared to, for example, Veeam."
"Other tools seem to be easier to use."
"We have a lot of requests for the Micro Focus team, particularly in terms of the Japanese data pattern, as it's not as good now. The Japanese data pattern accuracy of the Micro Focus Data Protector needs to be improved because there are a lot of false negatives and false positives. We are currently testing this and our product team has been communicating with the Micro Focus team."
"It can occasionally be inaccurate in its backup/recovery time estimates."
"OpenText Data Protector is more difficult to use and configure than OpenText VIM. The user-friendliness of OpenText Data Protector has to be increased, and the complexity of the tool needs to be reduced."
Azure Backup is ranked 7th in Backup and Recovery with 51 reviews while OpenText Data Protector is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 100 reviews. Azure Backup is rated 7.8, while OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Azure Backup writes "Straightforward to set up and manage and allows us to monitor all backups in one place". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". Azure Backup is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Rubrik, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup and Acronis Cyber Protect, whereas OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, Symantec Data Loss Prevention and HPE StoreOnce. See our Azure Backup 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.