Zerto Reviews

We're using Zerto to move services between our on-premises data centers and Azure environment.

Zerto has really helped us streamline migrations to new hardware or other data centers.

We use the solution to move servers and VMs between data centers. Thankfully, we don't have to use it a lot for DR. 

I love Zerto's near-synchronous replication. It's better than other applications that we tried. This near-synchronous replication is super important to our organization because we don't want to lose any data.

We're now trying to do disaster recovery (DR) in the cloud with Zerto. We haven't had any real use cases, but we're piloting it. It's pretty important to our organization to have DR in the cloud because we're in a very rural area where we don't have a lot of redundancy. So, it's important to have the scalability of Azure where we don't have it.

We use Zerto to help protect VMs in our environment, which is our primary use case. Our RPOs are pretty short. We can roll over a data center in 30 to 60 minutes if we have to. It's pretty quick, and we could turn everything around.

We looked at VMware's SRM but decided not to go with it.

We chose to use Zerto because the RTOs and RPOs were a lot faster with it.

Compared to other solutions, Zerto is really easy to use, and its interface is really nice. It's really easy to set up the replication groups in Zerto.

We're struggling a little bit now with the appliance migration with version ten.

Zerto could make some small improvements with some of the newer features. You can back up VMs but can't back up individual objects, like email objects, which could be improved.

I have been using Zerto for about seven years.

The solution's stability is very good. We haven't had any stability issues with Zerto.

Zerto can go bigger than our environment, so I think it has good enough scalability.

The solution's technical support is pretty good. Since we haven't had a lot of issues with the tool, we don't really use the support much. The cases we've opened have been resolved quickly by the support team. The support team seems knowledgeable and quick.

I rate the solution's technical support an eight or nine out of ten.

Positive

We have Zerto deployed in our on-premises data centers and for Azure VMware and Azure native so that we can switch between them. The solution's deployment is really easy. You just deploy the main tool and then tie it into your virtual environments.

Zerto's pricing was not that bad. I think it's gone up since we went live and added the cloud options now that we are an enterprise. The solution is expensive, but it's worth the price.

We use both public and private clouds to deploy the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

We use Zerto for replication.

We implemented Zerto to help with the high bandwidth required for the live application replication.

In my minimal experience with Zerto, the near synchronization replication is good.

Zerto does a good job of blocking unknown threats and attacks.

Its easy-to-use application server has helped our organization improve its bandwidth.

Zerto has made disaster recovery in the cloud much easier for us than in physical data centers.

We've seen significantly faster recovery times compared to other recovery tools we've used, like Carbonite.

Zerto makes it much easier for us to conduct and manage our DR testing.

The replication feature ensures minimal downtime during disaster scenarios.

Zerto's failback capability automatically recovered one of our live applications after it disconnected.

Zerto helps us monitor our disaster recovery.

Zerto's user-friendliness is valuable. It's easy to use.

It would be great if Zerto could automate replication more.

I have been using Zerto for four months. I joined the company when they were already using it.

I would rate the stability of Zerto ten out of ten.

The technical support is good.

Positive

I also use Carbonite but Zerto offers faster speeds.

The deployment of Zerto took a few weeks.

I would rate Zerto nine out of ten.

We have over 300 clients using our web applications.

We utilize the solution for our primary backup and recovery source. We use VMware for all of our servers. 

With the ease of integrating with our complete virtual infrastructure, it is nice that we can replicate easily between our HQ and DR sites. 

The flexibility in utilizing the test environment to allow production servers to be test restored with no interruption to the actual production server in use is really nice for quick and efficient testing. 

I highly recommend it for companies using virtual infrastructure.

The product allows us to restore to any given point within 15-20 second increments, including just files and whole servers. 

It allows us to efficiently test restore and restore files that were accidentally deleted within seconds of the deletion, giving the option to have the most up-to-date file restored with little to no data loss. 

It also allows reporting on the results of the testing, which can be provided really easily for board reporting, as well as auditing. There are many great features for sure.

The LTR function has by far been the best feature to allow us to retain our backups for at least a year. Also, it allows us to have full monthly and weekly incremental backups for that year, which can be restored or even just files from that period. It has come in handy for those accidentally deleted files. 

It also helps us keep our required retention period for specific documents and allows us to recover older documents if we have to compare and recreate those.

We would like the LTR function to be able to retain the past 12 months. Before the update to version 9, we could do this in the GUI. I am hoping that in version 10 (which is on the roadmap to be installed), this feature will return in the GUI to provide an easy way to lengthen our retention. The journaling can also be a problem at times. Also, I'm not sure why, however, retention processes randomly fail and have to be rerun periodically.

We have been utilizing this solution since 2017.

We use Zerto to replicate all of our production solutions. We replicate to cloud storage.

Zerto works really well. It's simple to set up and works well. Moreover, disaster recovery to the cloud for our organization is very important. We actually had to use it three years ago, and it worked out well for us.

It replicates a lot quicker than what we were using previously. We did see a reduction in the time it takes to replicate. We were using SAN replication, and Zerto works in about a quarter of the time.

We use Zerto to protect our VM environment. 

Zerto works reliably and that is simple to set up and manage.

Moreover, Zerto's Near Synchronous Replication is fast. It lets you recover to a very short point in time, so you don't lose anything. It's really important because we don't want to lose any of our data. We want to be able to recover as much as we can. So this feature helps us do that.

Overall recovery time objective (RTO) with Zerto is really good. It's within seconds for us.

When we migrated to a new virtual infrastructure, we had to set up Zerto all over again which took a long time.

It would be nice if Zerto had some sort of migration tool where you could migrate all of your virtual machines to a new infrastructure without having to set up Zerto all over again.

I've been using Zerto for about four and a half years.

It works really well. We rarely have any sort of issue with it. You just set it up and it does its thing.

We are a smaller environment, but it seems like it would work well for much larger organizations too.

We protect 36 virtual machines right now.

The customer service and support are really good. They reply quickly and they usually resolve the issue in a very short time frame.

Positive

We looked at Veeam, Veritas, and some other storage-level replication solutions. We chose Zerto because it was just simple to set up and had good reviews. It works well and is pretty simple to use.

The initial setup is pretty simple. We had it set up and replicating in about three hours. It's really quick to set up and works pretty simply.

We definitely have seen a return on investment from Zerto. We were able to recover from an incident that would have been a lot more serious without Zerto.

Without Zerto, our organization would have lost several million dollars in financial damages from data loss.

The solution is a bit pricey for sure. But the licensing is simple to understand, which is good.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use Zerto for disaster recovery purposes. We do not use Zerto for backups, only for the redundancy of the data center.

Zerto uses a rapid user interface that is user-friendly. Zerto's Near Synchronous Replication is helpful for our 12,000 servers.

Zerto runs behind the firewall to help block unknown threats and attacks. 

The solution has improved our RTO and we rarely experience any issues during failovers. We use Zerto on-premises and Azure for the cloud. We have a very good RTO whenever we have a failover from Zerto to the cloud.

Zerto reduced our downtime by approximately 15 percent by increasing our recovery speed. Zerto also helped our organization's disaster recovery testing by reducing the time it takes to bring up virtual machines on the DR side to 15 minutes.

Because Zerto's GUI is user-friendly, it is easy to execute a failover, so we require 1/3 of the employees to perform the task during recovery situations.

Our RTO is quick, and we can recover five to ten terabytes of data within minutes of a failover.

Zerto's effect on our RPO can be improved. When we have a VPG, we typically have multiple VMs and more than ten terabytes of data. This can cause long failover times due to data limitations, and sometimes the VPG can become full.

The technical support response time could also be improved. We often have to follow up multiple times to get a response, and when we do get a response, it is not always from the correct person who can handle our case.

I have been using Zerto for five years.

Zerto is stable.

Zerto is scalable. We have around 3,000 people that use Zerto in our organization. Zerto is deployed in multiple environments and multiple databases in two countries.

The technical support's response time is slow.

Neutral

We have seen a return on investment with Zerto.

Zerto is more cost-effective than Azure.

I give Zerto an eight out of ten.

We wanted a solution that would help us reduce our recovery time objective, and Zerto does just that.

We use VPGs to maintain data consistency in our environment. We do this by placing multiple servers in a single VPG, which belongs to the same application or database.

Zerto can recover data quickly when the data size is under ten terabytes. However, recovery can be slow for data sizes that exceed ten terabytes.

The distance of our data transfers will affect the RTO. Data transfers within one region will be quicker than those across multiple regions.

We also use Azure Cloud and are currently migrating Zerto to the cloud. Both use a GUI interface and both have good failover tests.

I recommend Zerto but it does have data limitations when using a single VPG.

We have previously used Zerto for data center migration projects. We have another data center migration coming up within the next year where we will be using Zerto as well.

We had pretty strict requirements when it came to cross data center migration capabilities. We wanted to ensure that no plugins or drivers were needed. We also wanted a simple deployment. Zerto very easily fit that bill.

The most valuable feature is Zerto's ability to synchronize data to the remote destination prior to the actual live migration date. This saves a massive amount of time during the actual migrations, and has been extremely beneficial. Having the data already synchronized on the evening of the migrations makes the final moves fast, easy, and seamless.

The interface is very easy to use. The product is easy to understand. We have had great success in using it for migrations. The benefit for us has primarily been the ease of use and stability of the product.

The VPG model has caused a bit of a concern. We are considering using Zerto to replace Site Recovery Manager. SRM is very easy when we have entire data stores being replicated. We don't have to make any decisions when it comes to groupings of VMs. If we move to Zerto, which we are considering, we will have to work closely with our applications teams to create VPGs and determine how the VMs will be grouped. This will probably be beneficial in the long term, but short term it will create more work for our team.

I spoke to a Zerto engineer who mentioned that we could do a VPG at the cluster level and a VPG at the datastore level. However, the one issue we've seen with VPGs is if the synchronization fails the entire VPG has to be recreated. Even though we can cover our environment at the cluster level or datastore level, that wouldn't be ideal. We really need a simpler solution for DR that will cover all of our VMs at once, instead of spending a considerable amount of time on VPG creation. 

We have been using Zerto for about three years.

The stability is very good. All of the components that we set up for Zerto have been very stable. 

Scalability has met our needs.

Support has been excellent. We had a couple of issues initially with a VPG that wasn't functioning properly. Support was very quick to respond. They were able to assist us and resolve the issue very quickly. We have only had to call support one time.

Positive

We also use Site Recovery Manager. SRM does not have the same feature set for migrations that Zerto has.

The product was easy to deploy. At the time, the only thing that we wanted to improve was to have an appliance for the ZVM, instead of a Windows server. I understand an appliance is available now. This will be very beneficial in the future.

The deployment was straightforward. We basically went through the documentation and then had a planning meeting with Zerto. Once we understood all of the requirements we were able to deploy very quickly with really no issues at all. We deployed Zerto in less than a week.

We implemented the product ourselves. Zerto's expertise has always been very good.

Our migrations were all successful. We had no issues at any point during the project. That is what really sold us on Zerto.

The licensing costs are not cheap. It is an expensive product. However, you do get what you pay for.

There was really no other product that compared to Zerto. Zerto had exactly what we were looking for in a data center migration product. It had the ease of use and interface that we were looking for, that is, very simple and straightforward.

Zerto's ability to copy the data first, then synchronize just prior to the migrations made it much faster and easier for us to use than other solutions.

Understand the VPG configuration. Understand that you will need to make some decisions as to how to cover your VMs. We eventually went with one VPG per VM for our migrations. This is because we discovered if the VPG has a problem, then you need start over and recreate the VPG. If you choose to cover 50 VMs on a VPG, and if that VPG fails for some reason, then you need to restart the whole process. So you need to consider your VPG design and how you are grouping your VMs.

We haven't used it yet for disaster recovery, but that is something that we will be looking at over the next year.

We have had great success with the product. It is one of the very few products that we have recently used that literally had no issues and worked exactly as designed. At every single point in our migration, it was successful. We had multiple migration waves that occurred over a period of a year and a half. We literally had no failures during that entire time, which is of rare in the industry and made us very happy. Now that we have another data center migration project coming up, we decided we were just going to go straight back to Zerto.

We are using it to decommission a data center, then moving the data over to other data centers that will still persist within our environment. Also, we now have a more robust disaster recovery for a lot of our non-vital, non-critical applications.

From a management perspective, one of the biggest benefits is to see the excitement of your engineers having a tool that truly enables them, really making their lives easier. That is something that I love. When we came out of the PoC, their eyes were just wide with excitement of what was possible now.

The replication would be the best feature. It increases our DR capabilities. We put a lot of time and effort into DR overall. For the amount of time that it takes to test and go through those activities on a regular, recurring basis, well, this cuts down on the time commitment, not just by the infrastructure team, but by the application teams and all their peripherals. Even just from a man-hours perspective, it is a huge cost savings. You cut down three hours per application, and an application has anywhere from three to 12 developers plus others who support that application. So, you are probably looking at 20 people times three hours, then times however many applications we have, which is in the thousands. That compounds pretty quickly.

We have been officially using it for three weeks.

It seems as though everything on the scalability factor checks out. However, we will see that very soon in our use case.

We have thousands of applications and servers. There is an exorbitant amount of data. 

The support that came in and engaged with us, setting us up through the PoC, were fantastic. Coming out of it, I already have five engineers who have gone through multiple levels of certifications. So, it appears as though that technical expertise, to be able to improve themselves, is right there at their fingertips. It seems highly available. I would rate them as nine out of 10.

Positive

We have used Site Reliability Manager (SRM), which is capable, but to a lesser degree. Zerto is 10 times to 100 times easier to use. It is amazingly fast.

I was not involved in the initial setup or deployment.

From the team, the deployment was very straightforward. The proof of concept that we ran took a little over a week. They were able to stand it up from scratch, deploy, and run several tests of varying complexities. Everything went smoothly. We put a contract and agreement together in record timing for our company.

We had a terrific hands-on proof of concept with the Zerto team, where they came in and worked with our infrastructure engineers. Our engineers were completely amazed by the solution's capabilities. As quickly as we could get our licensing in place, we did. Now, we have had our licenses assigned for the last two or three weeks.

From our perspective, we are already thin-staffed as it is. So, Zerto has allowed us to focus on other things that are equally important.

We have not been able to apply ROI yet, just because of our circumstances. We are waiting on teams to move out of the data center. However, we are now poised and ready. Once that onslaught of requests come in, that is when we will really see the return on it.

If you are a numbers person, the benefit far outweighs the cost from any other competing software or service provider. When you are talking about trying to keep a reduced amount of engineers in the happiest state possible in their work environment to do the workload that they had traditionally done with double the amount of people on their teams, this tool relieves all the stress that they are carrying with them on a daily basis, even though they don't have to implement it on a daily basis. I have seen that firsthand. That return on investment is almost invaluable.

They could iron out the licensing aspect of it, so we might be a bit quicker when implementing and starting to use it. At the same time, our sales rep and all the supporting team members from HPE and Zerto were great and very flexible. It is hard to be critical of that.

We have not done another valuation recently. Zerto was the first in quite some time.

I would rate this solution as nine out of 10.

Zerto is our primary means of failing over our critical production loads that have a relatively low RPO/RTO. This is our use case for this solution.

What we like best about Zerto is its fast failover to another data center. It is simple and it works.

The limitation with Zerto is that you're required to have one Zerto Manager per virtual center, and this means that we're only able to replicate one way using this solution. Now, we are evaluating the clustering of Zerto with Microsoft clustering, so we can replicate both ways and both data centers, and have the management server in both data centers.

Historically, Zerto has started going into the backup space, and that is when they lost focus on keeping their replication product good. Now, it seems they're finally leaving that backup space, and they're just sticking with replication, so in version 9, they have fixed all of my gripes about the product, e.g. they now support VMware tags, Windows bringing over the time on the target side, etc. All of these little things, they are all correcting, because they're now sticking with the replication product.

It's been five years since I started using Zerto.

Zerto is a single use case product and it works flawlessly. It is stable.

Technical support for this product was absolutely fantastic, but that was before they were acquired by HP. They are still good, but I can tell the company is becoming too big.

We didn't previously use a different solution, as this was the first use case or first requirement that we needed to have under a 24-hour RPO/RTO.

The setup for Zerto was very simple.

We implemented this solution in-house. Implementation only took less than a day to complete. Zerto was ready to use in our environment for a DR (disaster recovery) exercise weeks later.

The return on investment from Zerto was immediate. Instead of having legacy DR failover exercises that involved multiple teams and weekends work of activity, now a single user can fail over everything and get reports to prove that it was failed over and the data integrity was all done. As far as people hours and time, the ROI was instant.

Zerto is fairly expensive. We are on a perpetual three-year subscription, but for my less than 300 VMs that we needed this functionality for, it is worth it. I'm not aware of any additional costs beyond the standard fees for this product.

We did evaluate Commvault LiveSync, Veeam, and Dell solutions, though I don't even remember what the Dell product was. We did go through RFP. We went with Zerto because it was simple and it worked, and we didn't have to worry about doing anything else.

We're a Commvault and Zerto customer.

We are on Zerto 8.5, and we are evaluating version 9 update 3.

I have no impression on the scalability of this solution, because we haven't really grown yet. We have 300 endpoints and we've always been in that range. I can't tell how Zerto fares if there's more than 300 endpoints.

We have a primary asset owner who uses this solution, who gets feedback from other IT infrastructure teams of whether their servers need to have a low RPO/RTO. That single asset owner will then put those in Zerto. For deployment and maintenance, we have the primary asset owner, then there's a backup person. The primary asset owner does everything, but if the asset owner isn't available, the backup person will help with support roles.

We don't have plans of increasing Zerto usage, as we've always had a relatively static critical VM count of around 300, e.g. we've gone down to 260, we've gone up to 300, but it's always in a range that's close to 300.

My advice to people looking into implementing this product is that if you have less than a 24-hour RPO/RTO and you need it to work in your target location, then there's no other product for it other than Zerto.

My rating for Zerto is a nine out of ten, because nothing is perfect. Nine is the best rating I could give for this solution, but the key takeaway is that it is a single use case product and it does the job.