Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Bacula Enterprise vs NetApp Cloud Backup comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
NetApp Cloud Backup is praised for its efficient customer service, knowledgeable support staff, and detailed documentation, despite occasional delays.
 

Room For Improvement

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
5.3
NetApp Cloud Backup users need better integration, KPI handling, ITSM support, and ease of use, with cost-effective comparisons to competitors.
 

Scalability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
9.1
NetApp Cloud Backup is highly scalable, performs well in cloud environments, and integrates seamlessly with Microsoft Azure for disaster recovery.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
Enterprise buyers appreciate NetApp Cloud Backup's cost-effective pricing, though virtual NetApp hosting is pricier than general cloud hosting.
 

Stability Issues

No sentiment score available
Sentiment score
10.0
Users commend NetApp Cloud Backup for its stability, efficient large workload handling, strong integration, and minimal downtime during data restoration.
 

Valuable Features

No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
NetApp Cloud Backup is praised for its simplicity, seamless integration, efficiency, data protection, scalability, user-friendliness, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.
 

Categories and Ranking

Bacula Enterprise
Ranking in Backup and Recovery
26th
Ranking in Cloud Backup
17th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
10
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetApp Cloud Backup
Ranking in Backup and Recovery
27th
Ranking in Cloud Backup
23rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.1
Number of Reviews
4
Ranking in other categories
Deduplication Software (10th), Disk Based Backup Systems (4th), Cloud Storage Gateways (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Cloud Backup category, the mindshare of Bacula Enterprise is 2.1%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Backup is 0.3%, down from 0.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Backup
 

Featured Reviews

Davilson  Aguiar - PeerSpot reviewer
Very cost-effective and well organized with good compression
It could improve its interface or offer a specific screen for the manager of the company. A managerial user who wants more information beyond the operational technician should be able to access it. It could include greater transparency regarding the volume of data trafficked on the network, as well as the expectation of deduplication. A more practical strategy could come with a backup policy model as a suggestion for both large and small companies. A simple suggestion is to visually implement the backup time as far as your physical media.
Abbasi Poonawala - PeerSpot reviewer
Simplifies our backups with an agentless backup manager, but needs better integration with in-house applications
One area that can be improved is around how we define the different KPIs. In particular, the business KPIs. I have my own in-house application for the business KPIs, so for example, with our policies around retention, which is a period of seven years, I have to read these parameters from other applications and I need them to integrate well. NetApp Cloud Backup Manager should help to get this integrated seamlessly with other applications, meaning that it will populate the data around the different parameters. These parameters could be things like the retention period, the backup schedule, or anything. It might be an ITSM ticket, where it's a workflow that is triggered somewhere, and the ITSM ticket has been created for a particular environment like my development environment, an INT environment, or a UAT environment. This kind of process needs to integrate well with my own application, and there are some challenges. For example, if it allows for consuming of RESTful APIs, that's how we will usually integrate, but there are certain challenges when it comes to integrating with our own application around KPIs, whether it's business KPIs or technical KPIs. What I want is to populate that data from my own applications. So we have have the headroom in the KPI, and we have the throughput, the volumes, the transactions per second, etc., which are all defined. And these are the global parameters. They affect all the lines of business. It's a central application that is consumed by most of the lines of business and it's all around the KPIs. Earlier, it used to be based on Quest Foglight, which is an application that was taken up and customized. It was made in-house as a core service, and used as a core building block. But our use of Quest Foglight has become a bit outdated. There is no more support available, and it's been there as a kind of legacy application for more than ten years now in the organization. And now it get down to the question: Is this an investment or will we need to divest ourselves of it? So there has to be an option to remediate it out. In that case, one possibility is to integrate the existing application and it gets completely decommissioned. Here it would help if there were some better ways of defining or handling the KPIs in the Cloud Manager, so that most of the parameters are not defined directly by me. Those will be the global parameters that are defined across all the lines of business. There are some integration challenges when it comes to this, and I've spoken to the support team who say they have the REST APIs, but the integration still isn't going as smooth as it could be. Most of the time, when things aren't working out, we need dedicated engineers to be put in for the entire integration. And then it becomes more of a challenge on top of everything. So if the Cloud Manager isn't being fed all the kinds of parameters from the backup strategy around the ITSM and incident tickets, or backup schedules, or anything related to the backup policies, then it takes a while. Ideally, I would want it to be read directly from our in-house applications. And this is more to do with our kind of product processes; that is, it's not our own choice to decide. The risk management team has mandated this as part of the compliance, that we have to strictly enforce the KPIs, the headroom, and the rest of the global parameters which are defined for the different lines of business. So if my retention period changes from seven years to, let's say, 10 years or 15 years, then those rules have to be strictly enforced. Ultimately, we would like better support for ITSM. The ITSM tools like ServiceNow or BMC Remedy are already adding multiple new features, so they have to be upgraded over a period of time, and that means NetApp has to provision for that and factor it in. Some of the AI-based capabilities are there now, and those things have to be incorporated somehow. One last thing is that NetApp could provide better flash storage. Since they're already on block storage and are doing well in that segment, it makes sense that they will have to step up when it comes to flash array storage and so on. I have been evaluating NetApp's flash array storage solutions versus some others like Toshiba's flash array and Fujitsu's storage array, which are quite cost-effective.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Backup solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
19%
University
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
23%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
9%
Financial Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Bacula Enterprise?
Bacula is more expensive than various other solutions. It’s almost completely commercial now. Products like Veeam software are much more expensive.
What needs improvement with Bacula Enterprise?
Many features have been converted to commercial licensing, which restricts their availability.
What is your primary use case for Bacula Enterprise?
The last scenario in which I used Bacula was for a customer who needed some open-source tool which could support encryption at that time. We managed to convince the customer to use Bacula to deploy...
What's the 3-2-1 data protection that NetApp Cloud Backup offers?
Hi, the 3-2-1 data protection from this product is related to a backup strategy with the same name. I'm assuming you don't know about it so I'll tell you in a few words. In its essence, this backup...
Is NetApp Cloud Backup secure for backup?
I've just started using NetApp Cloud Backup but my initial reason behind choosing it in the first place is that they advertise their high-security approach. So basically, they give you ransomware p...
Is NetApp Cloud Backup expensive in your opinion?
It depends on how much exactly you count as expensive. For me, NetApp Cloud Backup isn't too expensive. I say that based on the services it provides and on the way it provides them. I think it's im...
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

NASA, SwissCom, Navisite, Turner Studios, Bank Austria, Caixa Bank, SdV Plurimedia, Leibniz University Hannover, Zeta Global, Tricore, NetLog, Siemens, LocaWeb, wbsGo, itesys, Queens School of Computing, Escrypt.
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Bacula Enterprise vs. NetApp Cloud Backup and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.