Zerto Reviews

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.

We use this solution for disaster recovery and business continuance.

We are protecting: SQL, our file servers, and some other applications that are specific to the healthcare domain.

In terms of providing continuous data protection, Zerto has been great. We've had no real issues and it's pretty easy to work with.

At this time, we do not use Zerto for long-term retention. It's something that we may look into, although we don't protect all of our VMs. We only have 60 licenses, but we have more than 300 VMs. We use Veeam for the actual backups at the moment, and it didn't seem practical to have two separate solutions, where we use Zerto for a few and Veeam for the rest. Licensing-wise, it was too expensive to put replication functionality on every VM, just to get a backup of it. I know that Zerto is changing its licensing so that you can get a backup only. However, when we purchased Veeam, it was for three years and we still have part of a year left. After that expires, we will revisit it.

Prior to implementing Zerto, we didn't really have any way at all if there was a disaster at one site to be able to spin things up at the other site. It would have been restored from backups, but we didn't have a backup environment at the other site that they would restore there. This meant that depending on how bad the outage was, it was going to be weeks or months to be able to get back up and running. Now we're in a situation, at least with our key applications, that we could get those back up in a matter of minutes versus weeks. There is now a much better comfort level there.

If we had to failback or move workloads, Zerto would decrease the time it takes to do so. Fortunately, we've never had an event where we've actually had to use Zerto for a live failover. We test the VPGs and get the actual individual teams that run the software involved to test everything out, to make sure it's good. Other than that, fortunately, we haven't really had a need to actually fail anything over at this point.

We have leveraged it at times to move a workload. An example of this is that we've had servers that we were initially told were going to be built at one site, but then a couple of weeks later, it's "Well, no, we want this at the other site." So, instead of having to create a new VM at the other site, decommission the old one, and all that work that's involved with that, we just used Zerto to move it. This is something that saved us a lot of time and it worked perfectly. Between building another one and decommissioning, it is probably a savings of three days' work between all of the people involved.

Fortunately, we haven't had to use Zerto to recover due to a ransomware attack. We haven't been hit with anything like that yet. That's one of the things that also made it attractive for us, was that we're able to potentially get to a point in time just before that happened.

We have also used it in a scenario where we've had a vendor doing an upgrade. We replicated it to the same site instead of the alternate site, just so that if something went wrong we'd have a more instant restore point that we could pick from versus our backups. Since our backups only run once a night, we could have potentially lost a decent amount of data. Again, the upgrade went smoothly, so we didn't have to leverage it, but if there was going to be a problem with that then it would have saved us time and potentially data.

The most valuable feature is the ease of upgrades. We've updated it numerous times since we started, and we can perform upgrades, including with VMware, without impacting anything in conjunction with it.

The reporting on failovers, including the step-by-step and the times, is useful because we can run through a failover and provide reports on it.

I find Zerto extremely easy to use. Setting up VPGs, the upgrade process, failover, and testing are all super easy to do. It is all very straightforward, including the initial setup.

I would like to have an overall orchestration capability that would enable you to do multiple VPGs in some sort of order, with delays in between. For example, at least in our testing scenario, we have our domain controllers. We have to fail that over first, get those up and running before we bring up the application side so that people can log in. If there was an actual failover, there would be certain things that would have to failover first, and get them running. Then, the application would be second, like SQL for example. For our dialysis application, one would have to have SQL up and running first before that. It would be nice to be able to select both and then say, start up this VPG and then wait 10 minutes and then fire up this one.

I have been using Zerto for between three and four years, since 2018

I find this product super stable and I've had basically zero problems with it. A couple of minor things came up, and support resolved them pretty much instantly. We've never actually been down with it, but one problem was where it didn't recognize our version of the VMware. It was an entry in some INI file but that was quickly resolved.

I would think it scales great and it's just a matter of licensing. Right now, we have just the basic license that enables us to go one-to-one. We do want to go to the one-to-many and then out to the cloud, which is an option that would be better for us. We're just waiting to get the cloud connectivity before we upgrade the license. In this aspect, it should scale well.

At this point, myself and perhaps one other person use the product. We're licensed for 60 VMs and we have just slightly less than that, in the upper 50s. I would think that our usage in the future will increase.

Every time that we have a project come along, as part of that, they're supposed to verify what the DR business continuity needs are in terms of RTO and RPO. The only option for us other than this is backups, which are up to 24 hours. If that doesn't meet the needs of a new project, we are supposed to get a Zerto license for it. It's something that should be increasing over time.

The technical support from Zerto has been great. Anytime that we put a ticket in, they've called back very quickly, and the issues have always been resolved in less than a day. Really, it happens within hours.

It is also nice that you can open a case directly from the management console, instead of having to place a call and wait in a queue. When you open a ticket, it's created, and then they call you back. It seems to be a great process.

We are currently using Veeam for backups only, whereas Zerto is used for our business continuity disaster recovery. We have never used Veeam in terms of DR. When we purchased Zerto, you had to buy a license for replication. You could also leverage it for backup, but it didn't make sense because it was more pricey than using Veeam for that.

For backups, Veeam is pretty easy to use. Backups seem slightly more complex than the DR part, at least in terms of the way Zerto is doing them. Ultimately, it's easier for me to work with than Veeam's backup, per se. But backups historically have always been a little bit more tricky.

We used to have IBM Spectrum Protect, which was a total beast. So, Veeam is much easier to use than our previous backup solution. I know Veeam does have a DR product and we've never really looked at it. So, I can't really compare Zerto to that. I know Zerto does seem to be a better solution.

Prior to working with Zerto, we didn't have a DR business continuity plan. Essentially, we had no staff working on it.

The initial setup is straightforward. We had it up and running in no time at all, and it wasn't something that took us weeks or months to implement. The install was done in less than a day and we were already starting to create VPGs immediately.

We started off as a trial running a PoC. We had a trial license mainly because, being in the healthcare industry, we have some unique applications. The other options for disaster recovery on those were going to be pretty pricey, and then, that would be a solution just for that one particular application. At that point, we were more interested in having the backups.

We don't like having five different backup utilities and we were hoping to have just one product that would handle all of our DR business continuance needs. That seemed to be Zerto when we looked at it, so we wanted to do a proof of concept on one main application, Meditech. It is our primary healthcare information system that everybody uses. It wasn't officially a supported DR business continuity methodology for it, but we did put it through the wringer a bit during the PoC phase to make sure it worked before we were really committed.

A lot of the other applications are straightforward, so we weren't as concerned with what we were going to do after the fact. But Medtech was one of the big driving ones that needed to be tested out before we committed to purchasing it. We did make calls to other hospitals who were Meditech customers as well, that were also using Zerto, to get a better comfort level based on their experiences.

Two of us from the company, including a technical analyst and an enterprise architect, were involved in the initial setup. One of the vendor's reps came down to assist us with the first one, and he was great to deal with. Any questions that we had, he was able to answer them right away. He didn't say things like "I'll get back to you on that". He definitely knew what he was doing.

The install was pretty basic and we probably could have done it ourselves regardless, but just to fill in some of the knowledge gaps of how it actually works under the covers, he was able to provide that and some other pointers on things.

In terms of ROI, it is hard to say. Fortunately, we haven't had any issues. Obviously, if we had an issue we would have seen ROI, but it's kind of like insurance. You pay for it and then if nothing ever happens, that's it. But, if something were to happen, then you're pretty glad that you had it in place. 

Similarly, if you have an accident with your car, it's good that you had insurance because it's saving you money. But if you never have an accident, then you're spending money. In that way, I look at any disaster recovery business continuity as insurance.

Although we've never had to use it, if we do then we will see ROI the first time.

The pricing doesn't seem too bad for what it does. I know that the license that we have is being deprecated and I think you can only get their enterprise one moving forward. I know that we're supposed to change to that regardless, which is the one that gives us the ability to move out to the cloud and do multiple hypervisors, et cetera.

Overall, it seems fair to me. Plus, that you can do backups and everything with it means that it is even of greater value if you're doing your entire environment. It could cover everything you need to cover, plus the backups, all for one price.

We were looking at VMware Site Recovery Manager at that time as the other option, and Zerto seemed a lot easier to use and easier upgrade paths. Even within the path to update your VMware environment with two products, it seems like the easier of the two products.

Now that a backup-only license will be available for Zero, switching away from Veeam is something that we'll look at when the time comes for Veeam renewals. One of the things that we'll do is a cost analysis, to see what it costs comparatively.

We are not using DR in the cloud, although we are looking at using it in the future.

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing Zerto is to do like we did, which was to implement a proof of concept, just to feel good about the solution, that it's going to meet your needs. Feel free to reach out to other people that are in your industry, as we did with other healthcare people. There should be a decent number of people out there that are doing what you're trying to do.

Zerto seems pretty good at hooking people up with other customers that are doing the same thing they're doing, so you have a chance to talk to them directly. I've been on those calls and Zerto basically just hooks you up with that person and they don't stay on the call themselves. It's just you and them talking, so they're pretty unbiased answers from most people. I definitely suggest reaching out to Zerto to get feedback from customers. Basically, just do your due diligence and research.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use Zerto for disaster recovery as a service and site-to-site migrations. 

Zerto enables us to do sandboxing failovers. You can run tests on a production environment in a sandbox and spin up a copy of your actual production environment in a few hours. When you're done with it, you can click a couple of buttons, and it's all blown away. You don't need to worry about reverting changes or interfering with your on-prem production environments.

The most valuable feature is the overview Zerto gives you, providing quick insights into where your VMs are and whether they're replicating. It's an easy interface to work with. Configuring Zerto to failover in Azure is pretty simple. The biggest challenge is moving from on-prem to the cloud, but that's not an issue with Zerto. The problem is the difference in hypervisors.

I would like to see some improvements with APIs going into the cloud so that they can more natively orchestrate the migration point-to-point without special hands-on configuration. Azure does some of that natively by having an agent on the VM, but Zerto could improve on its APIs into Azure or Google so that spinning up works more natively in that environment. It would make things smoother. 

I've been using Zerto for about a year now.

I haven't faced any stability issues. The only problems I've had have been self-inflicted, so it's pretty good.

Zerto's scalability seems pretty robust. I've had a few larger VMs that have been a little troublesome in terms of the RTO, but they are also outside of best practices. There should be no issues with scalability if you're working within the defined parameters of what's acceptable.

I rate Zerto support nine out of 10. I've used their support pretty extensively. I would say the majority of the experiences have been overwhelmingly positive. Their response times and issue resolutions are satisfactory.  

One thing I would change about Zerto support is the fact that you sometimes can't find the answer you need online. Sometimes, Zerto reaches out with an answer to that particular issue, and it's in a document that the customers can't access without going through support. It doesn't feel like that information should be limited to internal use. I should be able to find that online without going through a support channel. 

Positive

I've also used Azure's native Azure Site Recovery solution, and there are definitely some benefits to using Zerto, such as the fact that it works at a hypervisor host level over individual VMs with agents. The performance is probably a little better in most cases. 

Zerto is easier to use than ASR overall, but the setup is a little bit more involved. After the installation, the daily use is pretty simple compared to Azure. With Azure's native solution, there's a lot more that you must do repeatedly throughout the lifecycle of any virtual machine or system that you're trying to protect. Zerto is much simpler in that regard.

The on-prem deployment is super easy and works well. Migrating from on-prem to the cloud involves a lot more steps and things you have to configure so that it can communicate into the cloud and build everything that it needs to. That takes more time. It probably requires twice as much time to deploy on the cloud. 

We see the biggest ROI from Zerto's real-time test environment. If we want to do a proof of concept on a hundred servers, we can spin them up within a few hours and have them ready to start testing stuff with real data to see how that might look if we were to deploy that into production. It's an excellent, accurate test environment that we don't need to maintain.

Zerto's pricing is competitive, given the benefits and ease of setting it up. It may seem more expensive upfront, but you're going to save that over the long term by spending less engineering time configuring, reconfiguring, etc.

I rate Zerto nine out of ten.

Our primary use cases include replication and disaster recovery. 

We use Zerto to help protect VMs in our environment. We are really happy with RPOs (Recovery Point Objectives).

Both the Recovery Point Objective (RPO) and Recovery Time Objective (RTO) are fine. They always meet our requirements. Their significance is not driven by a single factor but rather by the customers. Some customers require an RPO of a few hours, while others require up to 24 hours. It depends on the specific needs of the customer.

The most valuable feature for us and for my company is that we are replicating most of our production customers to the DR site, and we can do testing whenever we want. The customers are very happy with the way we do the testing while the primary is still running. There's no disturbance to the primary production site. 

The most important function right now is that we have another DR site, which is in a very old environment that is non-Zerto. We were log shipping there through another method. We are migrating over to the Zerto platform so we can replicate it to the new DR site so we can shut it down. That's going to be a lot of savings for us, shutting down the old replication with the other way. That will be one of the benefits too.

Zerto offers near-synchronous replication, which is always on and constantly replicates only the changed data to the recovery sites within seconds. It doesn't really bother us because we have enough bandwidth. Since we do a 24-hour recovery, it does not take a lot of disk space. It's an issue sometimes because I have to constantly increase the space on the disks at the DR site. On the VPG (Virtual Protection Groups), I have to constantly increase the space. That's where the alerts are being generated too.  

Someone suggested to me that I should turn off this feature, but that's not the way to do it. Turning it off temporarily is similar to applying a bandage.

Moreover, we have plans for DR recovery in the cloud. That's our next step, and it's likely to be on the agenda. We probably will use the license we have for that, which we can use as of today.

Zerto generates many false positive alerts, which is annoying. I still have thousands of alerts in my inbox, and those are false alerts. When I check there's actually no problem.

I have been using Zerto for four-plus years. 

It's very stable as far as we're running. Even though I'm running it on a very old Windows Server 2012 server, it's still running fine without any issues. 

Scalability-wise, it's pretty good, too, but we're not there yet. We are using it for small 50+ VMs we are protecting right now, but we are continuously growing. We may have to expand with multiple ZVMs (Virtual Managers). We're going to install multiple. We just have one on each side, which we don't have an issue with.

The customer service and support are really good. I wish they had phone support too right away, but we have to go through their website and open a ticket.

Moreover, there's always going to be something a person is not one hundred percent knowledgeable about. He has to escalate to the top tier. 

Positive

Somebody else did the deployment in the company and I took it over after that. I just recently upgraded to the latest version without any issues. Zerto is very easy to upgrade.

There is an area of improvement for Zerto folks. Every time we do an upgrade, if we are three or four releases behind, we have to go to the next level, then the next level, and then the latest. This is a pain. We would like the ability to skip to the newest version. 

ROI is pretty good compared to the recovery compared to the investment we have. The solution is worth it. If we go to the cloud, the ROI is definitely going to be much more.

The pricing is pretty decent. We got a good deal. 

I really like Zerto. I've been using it for many years. It's a quick recovery. I failed over the complete site to the DR many times and then failed back to the production without any issues. 

We have VMware SRM but we are not using it. We have a license, we can use it, but we're not using it because Zerto is our primary right now. 

Zerto is very easy to use. It's not dependent on the hardware. It can decouple from any hardware. You can use it, even if you have different hardware at the source and the destination. That was the biggest attraction when we got into Zerto. It's pretty decent. 

I would rate Zerto a ten out of ten.

We use Zerto for server migrations between data centers during the role swap that we do. We use it from a recovery standpoint as well.

We currently do not have disaster recovery to the cloud. We go between our data centers. That is what Zerto helps us accomplish.

Zerto works very well. We have not had any faults while using it. We are a financial institution, so we have to make sure the systems we have are available with very minimal downtime.

It has helped out a lot in man-hours. It has saved us a lot of overnight work. We can literally change our production servers in a matter of minutes to hours. Rather than having to do this gradually or a couple of weeks in advance and have several teams and business partners involved, we can literally do it live on the same day.

Zerto is probably one of the faster ones in terms of recovery. You can just go into the console, and because it is always replicating over to the other side, it takes minutes.

Being able to do our recovery and being able to migrate between data centers during the role swap is valuable just because of the amount of time it takes. It takes 55 hours or so. Right now, we are doing this in a VDI environment. We are going to experiment with it as a proof of concept because we have a thousand machines that we have to move and do all the assignments. Zerto would lessen that down by a few hours, and then we can use some scripts to do everything on the Horizon's side. We have not done it yet, but we are hoping to reduce it down to about 3 hours instead of 55 hours. We will also be able to manage our host better and be in a better recovery state. If the host happens to go down, we can quickly recover.

It is very user-friendly. There is no wondering about what a feature does. It is easy to use.

If they already do not have it, they can have some APIs for the Horizon environment. Instead of having to use some scripts to get around, they can make it a lot more user-friendly for integration.

We have been using Zerto for two years.

It has been very stable. We have not had any issues while using it. When we need it to do its job, it is always dependable.

It scales very quickly. We can set up a whole new environment in an hour. We can get the server setup and all the VMs that are required for it to function in an hour or two.

I have not used their support. My peers had to use it. They seem very responsive and knowledgeable. 

The other DR tool that I have used is from Symantec. It was an old-school recovery tool. It was back in the day when it took a whole day to get things back up.

It was deployed before I joined the company.

Its price is fair. It is very cost-effective compared to the cost of the labor for your workers and associates. 

We selected Zerto over others primarily for the ability to replicate and help with our role swap. It cuts the downtime of the production systems by a large volume. This way, we can meet the deadline and not have that much client impact. In the financial side of banking, you do not want bad performance.

I would rate Zerto a nine out of ten. There is always room for improvement, but it definitely makes your life a lot easier.

We use Zerto as a DR tool. Instead of having to have a duplicate DR server, we can add a system to BPG and point it to whatever our DR site will be and replicate it for customers.

We also use it for migration planning. If we need to move VMs from on-premise to Azure or back, or it was built in the wrong place, we can easily move it over. 

It reduced the time for DR tests from the infrastructure side. Being able to get our work done in a matter of a couple of minutes so the app teams can get to work and can do their testing has been significant. 

Before we would have to use a backup recovery tool to restore it to a LAN, which could take hours at times, depending on the solution that was being used. 

The replication features are most valuable. It's fast to set up a BPG and get a system added. This aspect is very important to our business. Being able to provide customers with a very fast DR experience, whether it's for a test or live case scenario, and being able to provide the ability to move systems to Azure for cost savings or migrations, saves our ops teams a lot of time.

We would love to have a native management pack for vROps and to be able to view a dashboard and metrics for BPGs within vROps. We would like to have a single view for monitoring and provide customers with dashboards so they can see their own BPGs. 

We would also like to have a native plugin for VRA built by either VMware or Zerto. That way there's actual support for it and we're not on the hook for trying to figure out what happened if it breaks.

We have been using Zerto for four years.

The only problems we've had stability-wise come from upgrades.

This is a scalable solution. The only challenge is that there's no way to manage it centrally at the moment. If you have 30 vCenters, you now have 30 appliances and you have to remember where everything is, which can become a pain point when it comes to trying to find where this VM is being replicated and what BPG it's in. 

The support for this solution could be improved. It is challenging for staff who actually understand the product. We had issues where we ended up spending hours and sometimes days on the phone, only for us to figure it out on our own.

They're very personable and fine to work with. It seems like technical expertise is lacking. I would rate them a five out of ten.

Neutral

I haven't used too many other disaster recovery tools. We used standard backup solutions and Zerto is significantly faster. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We primarily use it for DR, that is, for VM replication between two data centers, using it not only for replication but also for orchestration.

Zerto provided better overall DR coverage and more consistency.

I found VM level replication and being able to group the VM levels to be valuable. I like not having to worry about whether a particular VM is in the right storage group; some of those sorts of things would trip us up previously. 

It's a lot easier and more straightforward for a VM administrator because he can know that this VM goes in this group or gets this tag, for example, and that it's now in a DR group and is taken care of. I don't have to worry about all the backend details. It's just simplified.

In terms of ease of use, the benefit of Zerto over SRM is the fact that it doesn't rely on a secondary backend product, with having to have the right storage groups with RecoverPoint or something else with multi-tier architecture.

It's still too early to compare the speed of recovery with Zerto versus the speed of recovery with other disaster recovery solutions. We've just started the DR tests to understand the time difference. However, from what I've seen so far, the speed of recovery is similar but more consistent with Zerto. We don't have situations where we've missed this or that.

Zerto reduced the staff involved in data recovery situations by a single person. Now, we don't have the backend storage person who has to keep an eye on it anymore. With a different solution, we would have needed two people.

There's one feature that SRM had that Zerto doesn't have, and it's one that we've been asking for. With the orchestration part of the failover, with our DR and our primary sites, the IP addresses are almost identical. The only difference is one octet. With SRM, we could say during a failover change. With Zerto, we keep hearing that it's coming, but we haven't received it yet. It's a feature that would be very beneficial. It would reduce the time a little bit more.

I've been working with Zerto for about two years.

The stability seems fine. I haven't seen any issues with it thus far.

For our organization, the scalability matched our needs. Between the data centers, we probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 VMs.

From what I have seen, the technical support has been very good. They've been very responsive to my team.

We previously used SRM. Zerto is a little bit more mature, has a better feature set, and is more aligned with the features and functionalities that we need.

We have seen an ROI from the perspective of a reduction in hardware and a reduction in the number of people trying to focus on the tool sets.

It is less expensive than the full solution that we had previously, but at the same time, it's not an inexpensive product either.

We evaluated Cohesity and other solutions.

Overall, Zerto is a very good product for us, and I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten.

We have customers who come in for DR as a service, but we also do inter-cloud DR.

It has brought customers into our cloud, since this was a barrier to get in. We have used the migration model a lot to bring customers in. We just brought in a customer from Microsoft Hyper-V into our VMware file. That would have been a difficult challenge if we did not have Zerto as a tool.

Zerto has helped to reduce downtime with several customers. For example, we had a customer who had many of their VMs encrypted. They had about 40 to 60 terabytes worth of data. To recover that from backup would have taken days. We were able to bring them up at the DR site, getting them up and running, within hours. This would have cost the customer millions if they had been down. As a title company, if they would have been down, that would have disrupted a whole title industry, where people are trying to buy houses. If you can't get the title for the house, then you can't move forward. Other people wouldn't have been able to sell their house. There would have been a ripple effect. So, that was huge.

It has definitely helped our customers reduce their DR testing. We can do failover tests live in the middle of the day and generate a report, and they are comfortable with it. 

Journaling is by far the most valuable feature. We have used it several times for customers who have gotten ransomware and had to do a rollback. Having the right time period was important. Some of them had their backups encrypted. So, they didn't encrypt the Zerto machine seven days previously, and we were able to bring that back up.

I have been using Zerto for about seven years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. All the workloads go on hosts. So, in order to grow, you will need to have more hosts anyway.

From the relationship standpoint, we have never had a local rep in South Bend, Indiana. It has always been somebody in Boston, and there is not a lot of communication. That is one of the big things. We would like help driving the business and talking to our sales people as well as more involvement from them. We could really utilize it more, drawing more customers in, but we need help with that.

I would rate the technical support as seven out of 10. Where it becomes difficult is if Tier 1 can't help you, then it takes a long time to get to Tier 2 or the development side, if something is beyond their capabilities.

Neutral

We use VMware High Availability, which is one of the options in our cloud. It is a less expensive option. So, we have customers who want that. Also, we have tried Veeam Backup & Replication, which is not cloud-native, so we don't use that. However, a company, whom we acquired, was using it. So, we tried it out.

Zerto is a lot easier to use. It has a lot more features, as far as orchestration, than VMware High Availability. The reallocation of IPs and the networking part of it are not that great in VMware High Availability. Plus, the retention that you get with Zerto is better than High Availability. Veeam didn't get into that much, and there is no orchestration into the cloud. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. The wizard that you run through is just very straightforward. If it is a DR-as-a-service customer on my end, then I am just deploying it as sort of a cloud connect, which is very easy.

I deploy it for all our customers.

We have absolutely seen ROI. Over time, we make money off of the CPU, RAM, and storage of Zerto usage. We benefit that way.

In a world where others are catching up, e.g., VMware High Availability, there needs to be a less expensive option as well. When a customer has approximately 100 VMs, if you multiply by 40, we aren't charging a very high margin on it at all since the license is so expensive. We feel their pain. That is the most expensive part of it. The storage, CPU, and RAM are a lot less. It is the licensing that is really expensive. Whereas, with an option like VMware High Availability, it is a couple dollars per month. That is our spend that we are charged by VMware, then our margin is higher on those VMs. Giving us some ability to have higher margins, as an MSP, would be a good thing.

I would rate Zerto as nine out of 10.