Veritas Backup Exec Reviews

I can give examples in term of the databases: the Exchange databases, the email databases or the flag files. It has improved the working of our organization in such a way that you can even go to a block-level restore and can go to a demo-level file restore.

The the technology we have been using is much better than the other software providers in the region. The other companies are OK now but Veritas started out first with this technology.

We are using this application as a corporate standard and we feel it's a better application compared to the others.

The most important feature of this product is the backup of any data, i.e. it could be databases or Z files, or anything.

For us, the main two features that we appreciate in this application are backup and restore. They are the main purposes for which we are using this application.

The stability, reliability of the product and the features that are available in this application are very good.

However, it's not too stable for client-server architecture. Center Management is not so interactive, and then there are some issues regarding the complex licensing which needs improvement.

There are small issues are going on. I am not sure if it is the product or the environment or the hardware that we use to support this application. So there are various potential factors. However, if you go back to the application, the support is really good. We get support in a timely fashion and are happy with it.

The product has limited scalability. It comes down to the hardware, i.e. what we are using, based on its limitations. It can support anything. If you're OK to scale in terms of your hardware, it's going to support you; that is not a problem. But, the licensing structure is quite complex and, as mentioned, this is where they could improve. Licensing is quite complex to understand, we have to go back to the vendor every time to get the right product.

Technical support depends upon the person who answers the call. If they are in your time region, then you get better support, but if they're not in your region then there is a delay in the support and you lose valuable business for backup and restore. Overall, it is much better than the others.

We are actually using two to three solutions at the moment. We are using the Arcserve Backup as they have also been a major player in the market for many years. We were using it and it was OK, but they have not advanced in terms of their technology for many years. for this reason we had to switch to Veritas.

Setup can be both straightforward and complex. If you're talking about just a single installation, it's straightforward. But if you come back to the client-server architecture, it's complex because it has to match the versions and it has a one-version backup compatibility. If you had to go back to a previous version, then you struggle. Thus, it's simple for standalone but is complex for the client-server architecture.

Definitely, we evaluated different options. We evaluated this product on different levels. We evaluated it for various backups such as the Linux backup, and we also used it for several other purposes and found that it's a better solution. That was why we chose this application.

The only challenge we are facing is that the Center Management is not as good as Arcserve, but it still works. The Center Management dashboard is not so user-friendly and that is the only thing we struggle with.

It's an easy software to set up and also, to backup and restore your files.

It's user-friendly, it's not very complex and a person with limited IT/technical support knowledge can manage this application.

The solution was primarily meant to be used for securing data. 

Overall, it's a very good product.

The scalability was good.

The solution was stable and reliable. 

Ultimately, the product did not sell enough to keep the contract live. 

The solution lacked local support, which became an issue for us and our customers. They needed to have more presence on the ground.

The deployment process was very difficult.

The pricing was quite high. We tried to sell it as software as a service, however, clients preferred to have their own product.

We used it up until October of this year, at which point the contract was terminated. However, we had been dealing with it since 2015.

We found the product to be stable. There were no bugs or glitches. It didn't crash or freeze. 

The solution could scale if a company needed to. It wasn't a problem. 

Local support was lacking. It was an issue in our region. Customers would not have been able to get the support they needed. 

In the end, we did not use it as our technical teams were not able to deploy it. 

Ultimately, the clientele rejected the subscription model on offer. They found it to be too expensive. 

We were a distributor, however, we did not sell enough and therefore the contract ended. 

Ultimately, the product had to have more presence on the ground. A good example of that would be Microsoft or, if you want, Kaspersky. They have the representatives here, and the representatives used to go to see the customer. 

They have many QBA with their distributor, and so they helped us promote the solution. It's very difficult to promote the solution. I was alone in the company trying to sell the solution, and I know that there were some representatives on the ground, yet they never spoke with us. Even if you asked them for a quote or something else, they never answered you or they answered very late. With so much time passing, it became more and more difficult for us to sell the solution. There was competition from, for example, Veam, which had people on the ground and able to help customers. We just never got the same level of local support for this product and it never worked out for us.

I'd rate it at an eight out of ten, as it is a good product in general, however, selling it effectively proved to be difficult. 

It is a good overall suite of products.

I would like to improve their ability to back up the cloud environment. Additionally, it would be nice to have a simpler UI.

The product is stable.

The product is scalable.

I think that customer support is okay.

I did not participate in the installation, but it's a bit cumbersome to use compared to other products.

For the price I've seen, it could be lower compared to other products.

Cohesity and Rubrik are both more modern and have a simpler user interface to use in case recovery is necessary.

I do not know which version we are currently using, as I am a sales manager and, consequently, cannot expand too much on the solution's technical aspects. 

The pricing could be improved. 

I have been using Veritas Backup Exec for four or five years.

The solution is stable. 

I do not have direct experience with tech support. 

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

The solution could be more cost-effective. 

I do not know how much the solution costs on a monthly or annual basis. I do not possess information concerning the price. 

We do the integration of the solution. 

At present, there is only one user, a backup administrator, making use of the solution. 

One of our customers in New York City made preparations for a DR site, but the project they had planned for this year was delayed by a year or two owing to COVID-19. It seems to me that the customer likely needed the same solution in the DR site. 

I rate Veritas Exec Backup as a five or six out of ten. 

We are a solution provider and Veritas Backup Exec is one of the backup and recovery solutions that we implement for our clients. This product is used to implement a backup repository to the cloud.

This is a very flexible product, which allows you to back up not only the physical environment but also the cloud environment. It has a lot of system and application support.

It would be better if it were possible to maintain the information that is in the cloud. The integration with SaaS applications like Office 365 needs to be improved.

We have been selling Veritas Backup Exec for a few months, and Veritas NetBackup for 14 years.

This is a stable solution.

Veritas Backup Exec is a scalable product. This product is used for smaller customers, whereas NetBackup is used more as an enterprise solution.

I have not had end-user experience with the Veritas technical support.

We also work with Veritas NetBackup.

I am not familiar with the installation process, but my understanding is that it's simple.

This product is priced for smaller customers.

Veritas Backup Exec is a product that I can recommend to others.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

Its reliability and the fact that we have all the skills that we need for Veritas Backup Exec are the most valuable.

They can improve the reporting component. The reports aren't user-friendly at all. You have to download them to Excel to get statistics.

I have been using Veritas Backup Exec for five years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable.

They have always been good. 

Its price is reasonable. 

We are very happy with Veritas, and we work with them consistently for our servicing. We are a reseller, and we have been their Value Added Reseller of the Year three times. 

This solution has been good for us. We have had good support. It is very stable, and it works for our customers. Only the reporting feature needs to be fixed. 

I would rate Veritas Backup Exec an eight out of ten.

The solution is good for small and medium-sized businesses. It's easy to manage and deploy. It works in many environment, such as Microsoft Windows. It is friendly and can be easily deployed to all servers. 

The solution does not come with many issues, although the configuration of certain solutions on Windows should be addressed. The EDR should be looked at, as the operating system is too weak. 

I have been using Veritas Backup Exec for one year.

The solution is easy to deploy to all servers. 

Veritas comes with an annual licensing fee. 

The solution has a fee for additional editions. 

I rate Veritas Backup Exec as a nine out of ten. 

Our primary use case is for authentication, we check for authentication issues. The app allows users to only access the network according to the policy that the organization provides.

It gives us a very good view of what's happening on the network. The security feature is very good as well. The network isn't open to everyone. It's open only to those who work on it.

One improvement we've seen is the visualization of issues. If people are having issues on the network, we have to see what's happening right away. On the graphical side, we can see exactly where the issue is, and what port is affected. It's a lot easier for us to correct and to troubleshoot network issues now.

The interface continues to be very convenient and very straightforward. 

We occasionally have false positives, but the solution certainly has a good configuration.

In terms of improvements, I think the pricing model could be improved. They charge you by port, for every port that you have even if you're not using all of them. 

The solution could integrate better with the firewall so that we could block ports that are under attack or compromised. I know that Portnox has this, but I don't think it's something that's really built-in. There are scripts that you have to perform. But if it was more integrated, it would be easier.

The solution is very stable. We haven't had any issues.

The solution is very scalable. Whenever we grow, it's just a matter of adding new licenses, so it's easy. Right now, we are at about 800 ports. 800 devices are currently connected to the solution. It is a system that we use daily. It's always running in the background. We get reports and alerts, and we deal with them as needed. As the company grows, we plan on increasing usage.

We haven't had to contact technical support for a long time. Generally, when we've needed to in the past, we've received good support.

I tested the solution about six years ago. We checked other solutions too, but we decided that this one was the one that would work best. Since then we've been very happy with it. 

The initial setup was straightforward. Deployment takes a day or two, and then you have to run the system. To maintain the solution we don't need any resources. It works on its own and we get alerts and work according to those alerts. There's not a dedicated team, just a system team. 

We had an integrator that helped with the installation.

Licensing is based on the number of ports you have. Even if you aren't using all the ports, you will be charged for them. The license is renewed on a yearly basis and we do pay for support on top of that.

We evaluated Forescout at the time. The system was more complicated and more complex. I don't know how it is today, however. It took a lot more time to integrate it into the company. It also had false-positive issues, so we decided against it.

We use the on-premises version of the solution.

For what we need, for how we're using the solution, it does what it's supposed to do.

If I were to give advice about the product to others, I would say that it's a very simple solution and it does pretty much what it's supposed to do. We haven't had any problems with it for the past six or seven years.

I would rate the solution at nine out of ten. It's helped us tremendously over the years in locating all kinds of issues that we had on the network. It also finds any issues very quickly. I would recommend it.