Veritas Backup Exec Reviews

Our company uses the solution to provide virtual and physical backups for our clients. Most of our clients are small businesses and our team of five engineers capably manages their projects. 

The solution is good for physical backups. 

Recovery via Active Directory is painless and much easier than the complicated setup procedures of other products. 

The tape library management tool needs improvement. 

The solution is not good for virtual backups because antiviruses write on the disc in blocks and the high number of changes or flags increases backup times. Agents should not be installed on top of VM because they cause discs to get overloaded and that is costly. 

Managing collapsed discs should not have any effect on the size of backups. The solution should be able continue increments and manage restorations without errors similarly to how Veeam handles the process. Active Directory restorations should not require an agent or additional things.

The solution is too heavy and complex with 1,000 menus and options that make it messy rather than lightweight. 

I have been using the solution for fifteen years. 

We worry about stability because the solution requires many components or agents to be installed such as Active Directory and Oracle which can cause issues. System-level restorations are always a headache and corruption causes everything to collapse. 

For comparison, Veeam has a a one-click, granular restoration option that completes the process in two minutes. There are no agents involved in the process so there is greater confidence. 

The solution is scalable and good when compared to other products that cause worry when performing backups. 

I used technical support years ago and it was good. The 2012 edition was bad but technical support really tried to work with it. 

There was an issue with a backup that took 24 hours to resolve, but by that time the backup had expired because support forgot to reset it.

I rate technical support a six out of ten. 

Neutral

The setup is easy but ongoing management depends on whether the infrastructure is physical or virtual. 

Backups take 40 minutes but can be complex depending on the environment. 

I rate the setup process a four out of ten.

The solution is implemented in-house. Ongoing maintenance is easy and we provide this to customers. 

Our backup support is handled by four engineers who build customer confidence in managing the process. 

The solution costs $700 per agent and is expensive compared to other products that offer better stability. 

I rate pricing a four out of ten. 

The solution has similar features to other products but nothing in particular stands out. 

The solution used to be a leader in the SME market. In 2010, it rolled out a new design with enhanced features but the 2012 update completely collapsed. The solution often changes names but there have been no improvements since 2012. It is also a headache to restore and fully trust corrupted Active Directories. The solution is failing due to lost market share that was captured by other products. 

The virtualization movement happened drastically and VMware captured it because the solution was still an agent-based operation that required both client and virtualization licenses. 

RecoverPoint has good replication because it manages split writing. 

The only product that wows users is Veeam which operates in an agentless system. Acronis is doing well with its imaging solutions but they do not compete with or eliminate Veeam's dominance. At one point Veeam had issues restoring smaller files but the new release does extraordinary restoration. 

If you require an agent or a physical infrastructure, the solution is a good fit. If not, I ask clients to go with VMware or Veeam instead. 

I rate the solution a five out of ten. 

Our primary use case for the product is managing backups for our centralized data center and distributed storage systems. 

The platform has significantly improved our backup and recovery processes by efficiently managing data protection and supporting tape drives. It has also provided reliable data recovery solutions.

The most valuable features include its efficient data backup to tape drives and excellent support system. It provides quick and effective responses to issues and has a robust support structure that assists with application concerns and technical problems.

One area for improvement is Veritas's pricing, which is higher than Veeam. Additionally, Veeam offers volume-based licensing, which is more cost-effective than Veritas's code-based licensing. Hence, reducing costs could make it more competitive.

We have been using Veritas Backup Exec for our backup solution for approximately one year.

The product is stable. 

The product is scalable. It accommodates growing data needs and can effectively handle large volumes of data. 

The customer service and support from Veritas have been excellent. They provide prompt responses and effective solutions to any issues encountered.

Positive

We initially used Veeam. We switched to Veritas as it offered the necessary support for our tape drives, which was a critical requirement for us.

The initial setup process is user-friendly. 

The implementation was carried out with the support of vendor teams.

The platform provides robust data security and recovery options, ensuring data integrity and protection.

If cost is not a major concern and advanced support is needed, Veritas remains a strong choice. However, for those seeking a more affordable solution with competitive features, Veeam may be a better option. 

I rate it an eight. 

It's very easy to administer so the IT team doesn't need a dedicated backup administrator. An IT admin can manage the backups. It's easy to deploy and doesn't require a lot of resources on the client machine. 

So the customer doesn't need to purchase high-performance servers or enterprise-level solutions. This reduces costs for the client in terms of hardware and IT management resources. It also integrates with virtual machines and environments, allowing customers to back up their databases and applications.

Backup Exec has improved data recovery times during critical operations for our customers.

The resources are generally easy to manage and don't require much network bandwidth. Restores are also easier and take up less bandwidth and time. This is good for the industry, as it helps them get their critical servers back online quickly.

We rely heavily on the image-level backup functionality for simplified disaster recovery. Many of our clients have physical infrastructure, so this protection is very important to them. 

Taking an image-level backup and restoring it is very easy in Backup Exec, which helps us significantly. 

Additionally, we have virtual infrastructure, so restoring virtual machine systems from backups is also very easy. These two features are most crucial for us.

From a licensing perspective, there's room for improvement. Previously, we had a license that could support both virtualization and databases within virtual machines. This meant a single license would cover both. 

Now, with the simplified license model, it only covers VMs. So, if there's one thing that could be definitely improved, it's the licensing model.

We have this product for four years now. 

It's a good product for SMB-level clients. 

So, we don't use features like replication much. We have SMB customers, and they can't afford the high bandwidth lines needed. We typically use it for on-site backup recovery only. 

However, we are aware of the repeatability offered by Backup Exec. Although we haven't implemented it yet, if needed, we can refer to the documentation. We've heard the application is good, but we haven't tested it ourselves.  

We are an IT solution provider company, and we offer backup solutions with Veritas Backup Exec, Veeam, and Commvault.

The solution is primarily used for the usual database backups, virtual machine backups, and file backups.

I can't say there’s any significant difference with other solutions. It's just a backup solution for me.

It’s pretty standard. There is no significant difference for me.

We needed something that offered backups at a lower price, which this delivers.

The implementation is straightforward.

Other solutions have Kubernetes-specific solutions within them. This doesn’t. In the future, we may need the product to have that, however, in my environment, I don't have Kubernetes, so for my use, it is not necessary.

It may be useful if it was easier to access.

The reports could be made in an easier way.

I’ve been using the solution for the last three years.

It is stable. That is no issue in our environment. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s reliable, and the performance is good.

It has agents. I didn't need any strategy in terms of scaling. When I need to add an extra device, I just install the new agents. I didn't force the limits, like Backup Exec. I didn't force the limit, so I can’t speak to the maximum expansion capabilities.

We have four people using the solution. They are system admins.

We do not plan to increase usage anytime soon.

We don’t have much recent experience in technical support. We haven’t used them in the last 12 months or the past three years. When we did deal with them, they were okay. They were helpful.

Neutral

I've used, in my old company, a VM solution.

It’s effortless to set up the solution. It’s not difficult at all. I’d rate it a four out of five in terms of the ease of setup.

The deployment is swift and doesn’t take too much time. We didn’t really have a specific strategy going into the implementation.

We only need one person to handle deployment and maintenance tasks.

I handled the initial setup in-house.

I wouldn’t be able to calculate an ROI. I’d rate the product a three out of five in terms of the likelihood of getting an ROI.

The pricing is reasonable. It was the main selling factor for us. We pay a yearly licensing fee. I have a gold edition, and it includes all the features that I need - so it's enough for me.

I’d rate it a three out of five in terms of the affordability of the usage.

We looked at other solutions. They’re all basically the same, however, this product offers a lower price. I was not a part of the evaluation process the last time around.

I’m a customer and end-user.

It is a useful solution and it can be used in any enterprise environment.

I’d rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for Veritas Backup Exec is to take the emails from all the servers and for backing up the files. We require administrative control of that process. 

We use Veritas for incremental backups for all the servers. It is an automated process. Lately, we have taken advantage of the full backup facilities provided by the product.

Veritas Backup Exec has enabled us to save costs.

One nice feature with Backup Exec is mainly that disaster can happen to any server and the disk image can be destroyed very easily. It's also easy to fully email the backup image and restore the server.

A lot of backup solutions are coming out now and a lot of new disaster recovery software is coming. We should see an updated cycle in six months or one year. Veritas Backup Exec should be more user-friendly. The costs should also be much lower and it should be easier to go through the disaster recovery process.

This solution has been working perfectly for us for many years now. I did not encounter any major problems or issues with it during production.

We need some more added value to this software, i.e. better disaster recovery.

The stability of the solution is good. I cannot think of any issues that we've had with stability. 

I would give the scalability an 8/10. We have more than 50 to 60 servers. We were declined to accomplish what the servers needed for images at that scale. 

We can support 50 servers and after that, we use some higher angle or higher position user permissions for backups because of our infrastructure requirements. 

For deployment and maintenance, we only require 4-5 people.

The technical support is very good. They give us very good support. We don't have any problems with support. 

We were also using Symantec Enterprise Vault.

It's easy to set up, setting up it is no problem. The configuration is also very easy. 

The setup time for Backup Exec was about one week. If the structure is very heavy, then it will take around one month to set up. 

We had some help from what our integration company would provide for the setup. Then we go through our own internal configuration settings. 

For Backup Exec usage, the client uses the software with us because we have a license for this product. The license availability we have is for ten years.

Licensing is somewhat expensive. They should decrease the price.

This solution we are using now is only for the data backups. The last data recovery we were on had different features and functionality.

Disaster recovery is only part of our backup solution for our internal operations. Other backup solutions were not as reliable, i.e. the previous solution crashed. After that, I knew that Backup Exec solution was what I was looking for because it has better features for recovery.

For our internal purposes, Veritas Backup Exec is very good, but for disaster recovery, you should go with another product. 

Nowadays, everything is going on the cloud and the backup solutions should also be also fast. A lot of things we are maintaining now require professional disaster recovery services. With Veritas, an internal alert problem is happening for all the windows which should be somewhat decreased. Then it would be better and more user-friendly.

I am giving Veritas Backup Exec an 8 out of 10. The Backup Exec software is very good but should be updated with new features. 

We use this solution for data backup on premises, for data servers and file servers.

It has improved my organization. The data disk to disk to tape method is very helpful and it is easy to restore the individual or folder lever restoration is much easier.

The disk-to-disk-to-tape backup feature is quite good, and BKF file locking is a very important and safe silent feature.

Whenever a job fails, it would be a great improvement to be able to resume the job from the job got failed that feature. Suppose a job was started this morning and that it is going on while there are interruptions like network issues, server restart issues, server connectivity issues, services stopping, etc. For some reason, let's assume that the job failed or that it was mistakenly canceled by another person. It will be a great improvement if that failed job can be continued automatically or as a manual task. 

Exchange backup restoration takes a long time. Restoring a single email from the backup entire database is virtually occupies the entire system disk and it is huge pain. So, exchange email restoration should be simplified.

Some time no reason some backups are getting failed after certain percentage, if I run the job again manually one by one then it will run successfully from one particular server. 

Additional ransomware protection mechanisms could also be added.

I've been using this product for the last 22 years or more.

The product is stable, but sometimes, it is slow. Another challenge is that if there is a server with 10 drives, I may have volumes five and nine failing while the others are fine.

It is scalable.

Veritas' technical support is okay; not remarkable. The documentation is okay as well.

Neutral

We worked with Veeam Backup, which is good.

Because I've been using Veritas Backup Exec for 22 plus years, the initial setup is quite easy.

The installation and configuration, including tape drive, agent configuration, etc., took about one to one and a half hours.

I implemented the solution internally by myself. 

The pricing is reasonable. 

I previously evaluated ComVault and Druva.

Better architects should be there to create the backup systems. Dedicated backup servers, dedicated switches, and separate networks would be good. Resume option for failed JOB. 

I would give an overall rating of six on a scale from one to ten for Veritas Backup Exec.

I use the solution daily for daily backups and weekly for full backups and monthly for the stuff that gets sent off-site.

As far as if we need to restore a file, the solution absolutely has improved the way our organization functions. It saves us a lot of time. We're backing up all of our servers with it.

The backup potential of the solution is very good. It's protected us in the past very well and allowed us to get up and running after an attack with minimal loss.

The product needs to be consistent. Within the process itself, a lot of times it will hang on the jobs and you have to then restart all the services to get it to release. The job rate sometimes just randomly will tank. Therefore, you have to stop jobs and restart them in order to get them back at a quicker pace. Those are probably the two worst features. 

Something within the software itself isn't quite right. There may be a bug or glitch. It will work fine for weeks and then all of a sudden it just tanks.

I've been using the solution for about 12 years, however, it's my understanding that the company itself has likely used it longer.

We've found some sort of bug or glitch in the solution that makes it a bit unpredictable. It will work fine for weeks and then all of a sudden it just stops and takes a dive.

That said, it's pretty stable. I would probably say, it is at least 90% stable. It's that 10% where the job rates have a little bit of a problem. I was hoping that this newest version would be better, however, it has the same issues as older versions.

The solution's scalability is actually getting better. I have not tried to go into the virtual world with it, however, it says that the product can do it. I've not tried it due to the fact that we're using the other products for it, and have Veeam for a virtual solution.

There are three of us that would potentially could go into the product to use it. That includes a network administrator and myself.

At this point, we don't have plans to increase usage.

I have never used technical support personally just yet. The previous administrator had to for a couple of different issues and they mentioned that support was good. 

I'm not sure if a different solution was ever used. I've been at this company for 12 years and we have only used it. They used it even before I arrived. I'm not sure if anything came before it.

The initial implementation was actually fairly easy. It was pretty straightforward. I actually just rebuilt it and put it onto a newer server. It is actually very easy.

I had deployed within a day due to the fact that I was familiar with it. If somebody wasn't familiar with it, might take them up to a couple of days to do it. I was very familiar with it and therefore could do it pretty fast. It took me just a few hours or probably a day's worth of work to get everything in there, the way I wanted it.

We do not require any additional staff for deployment and maintenance.

We handled the implementation in-house. We didn't require a consultant or reseller to assist us.

Any time any of these products can back up your systems so that you can quickly restore them or restore files is most definitely beneficial to your company.

The solution is not the cheapest option. It's pretty pricey.

Although I know that we pay for it yearly, in March, I'm not sure of the exact costs.

The pricing goes by different types of databases that you're backing up. It's more expensive, for example, if you have an SQL database depending on what you're backing up.

I don't recall paying anything beyond a standard licensing fee for the product.

We're currently considering looking for a new solution. We want to see what is out there. This product is also quite expensive.

Having a reliable backup is essential to your company. For example, we were using this product to back up one of our servers that got the CryptoLocker virus. We were able to go back and restore it to just a few hours previous to the attack and we were able to get everybody right back up and running within a day, in less than a day's time. It absolutely could have just spread right through the whole environment had we not caught it. This solution gave us the ability to be able to get back up with minimal data loss.

Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. If they were able to take out some of the bugs we have found I'd rate it higher.