We performed a comparison between OpenText Data Protector and Veritas NetBackup 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 feature that was most valuable was that we could restore one mailbox and we could do different backups for different databases."
"It's user-friendly and not overly complicated to configure."
"What we find most valuable in Micro Focus Data Protector is that it provides Japanese data protection, for example, it protects information such as the full Japanese name, address, etc."
"I have used Micro Focus Data Protector for the file backup facilities. My primary use of the software is to backup file data."
"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."
"Backup of SAP/Oracle -- they are more robust than the competition."
"It's supports Unix, Linux, all of the OS's. It's very stable software."
"I like that it supports HPE UNIX servers since many backup solutions do not - this is the main reason why we chose this solution."
"It has been around for so long, and it is very in-depth. It has a solution for everything that you can cover."
"I can rely on this product if I need a restore."
"The most valuable feature is that it is basically a replica of our SAND data. We archive the SAND data for recovery, if there is an issue on the fence."
"The tool's information transfer and patching up is easy. The solution offers protection from ransomware which is also a valuable feature."
"The client side deduplication reduces the backup window."
"It was especially useful with the appliances we use on a daily basis."
"The features are good."
"Veritas NetBackup Automatic Image Replication and CloudCatalyst features allow me to replicate deduped backup images from one site to a remote site, as well as duplicating deduped images to the Cloud (i.e. AWS S3, etc.)"
"The graphical interface needs to be improved."
"The scheduler setup could be better. We are facing some issues scheduling the job based on our requirements."
"The challenge is that we can't restore a single file from the VM in the data process when we do VM backups. But with Commvault, you can restore a single file even if you have a VM snapshot package. That's one drawback of this tool. When we do VM backups, it should help us browse the VMs to restore a single file instead of doing the complete VM restore."
"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."
"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."
"I'm uncertain if it supports virtual machine backup and restoration. If they could enhance this aspect, they could gain more support from end users."
"The Micro Focus Data Protector support is not as good as Veeam Backup & Replication's support."
"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."
"Netbackup can backup MySQL via Oracle policy, to be honest, this is not completely native support and this method has a few limitations. In fact, you can buy from Veritas (or Zmanda) clients for MySQL or PostgerSQL from Zmanda to backup MySQL or PostgreSQL on Linux."
"The security and performance could improve with Veritas NetBackup. The security could be improved by protecting the data from attackers."
"The database integration could be better."
"Data restoration from Veritas NetBackup is quite slow. I would also like documentation that I can share with my technical team."
"It would be better if it had a cloud integration feature. I would like to use a single product for the cloud instances and the on-premise instances. The price could also be better."
"We faced so many backup configuration issues. And from the Veritas side, they couldn't fix that issue. So we started from scratch, purchased everything, and then we configured everything. Therefore, the support could be better."
"Enhancing reporting across the board would be beneficial."
"The restore tool is not friendly to newcomers."
OpenText Data Protector is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 100 reviews while Veritas NetBackup is ranked 5th in Backup and Recovery with 112 reviews. OpenText Data Protector is rated 7.6, while Veritas NetBackup is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of OpenText Data Protector writes "User-friendly, competitive, agent-based, and easy to manage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veritas NetBackup writes "Efficient data recovery and replication features ". OpenText Data Protector is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Commvault Cloud, Symantec Data Loss Prevention, HPE StoreOnce and Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, whereas Veritas NetBackup is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Rubrik, Veritas NetBackup Appliance, Veritas Backup Exec and Azure Backup. See our OpenText Data Protector vs. Veritas NetBackup 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.