Zerto Reviews

I am the global lead for infrastructure for the VMware and Windows Server environments. We are mainly using Zerto for disaster recovery. We have a prime site in Missouri, and we have plants in Taiwan, Malaysia, Japan, Italy, and Korea. We have 400 to 500 users in the environment. 

We have installed Zerto software on the DR site and the production site. We will be using Zerto for the production site for all the centrally used applications, such as SAP, file servers, and Exchange. Because this is a central site, a lot of other sites come to this site for various things. 

We also have Zerto on the DR site. In manufacturing, there are 60 or 70 tools, and each tool costs around $500,000. When the site goes down, you cannot transfer these tools very easily. It takes time. These are big tools, and it takes time for them to go somewhere else. You have to do a test again and go through the qualifications procedure, which takes time. As the IT department, we are interested in getting the applications that are used by all the sites centrally located, and if anything happens to the primary site, we want all the applications to be already there on the disaster recovery site. We just bring them up, and we are good to go.

Zerto will help to protect VMs in our environment. We have tried that in the test environment. That would be another reason for using Zerto.

We have used it for VMs. We know that it is a very good product. So far, we have only synced SAP and tested a few things. For SAP, there were two guys doing that, and they like Zerto very well. They have the test databases up there. It was smooth, and they liked it. The part that we still need to test is the Windows VMs where we can spin up a domain controller, change the IP, etc.

We can move data that is needed to keep our users collaborating with one another using Zerto because we are doing a continuous sync of the site. Once it is synced, we do not have to worry because everything happens in the background.

The replication feature where it constantly replicates and sees that data is always in sync is valuable. 

The ease of moving all the VMs is valuable. All we have to do is change the IP address and the VMs are all up and running there. There is a passive sync with all the VMs. That is what we like about Zerto. VMware has its own tool, but you need to do a lot of scripting. In manufacturing, we have a one-man team, so we do not have time for all the specialized work. We needed an application that is more GUI-based so that we can pinpoint and easily move VMs. We can bring up all the VMs and make sure the data is in sync, and we are up and running, so the ease of implementation is what attracted us to Zerto.

Zerto is very easy to use. It is very professional. We had no issues at all. Even for bringing up a new ESX host, they have a standard procedure. It is very easy. With a few clicks, you can do the ESX installation. 

There should be an automatic installation in a cluster. When I add a virtual client or ESX source to the cluster, it should automatically install that. There should be automatic installation. Currently, I have to do that manually.

They can give us a few training classes.

We installed Zerto just three months back. We have not yet started using it properly.  

Zerto is a very stable product. We have no issues. So far, it is working as planned. It is very stable. We will soon be working on it full-fledged. 

It is very scalable. We buy new licenses, and we just add another ESX or VM. We manually install it, and then we are good to go. It is pretty easy.

We have not contacted support yet. So far, so good. Everything is working as planned.

I tried VMware replication, but it was too hectic with all the scripts, so I gave it up. 

We implemented it recently. There was the ease of implementation. It was easy and straightforward. 

In manufacturing, we have to make sure that everything is on-prem. The data has to be on-prem because all the tools write immediately to the servers. There are two types of manufacturing. For the type of manufacturing where your tools are constantly writing, cloud applications are not good. For example, when we scan wafers, there is a set of data, and when we go through another tool, there is another set of data. This has to be instantaneous. There is nothing called a cache or buffer on those tools. It has to be instantaneous. We cannot say that the cloud is down, and we lost the data. We cannot stop the tool because this is a manufacturing facility with 24-hour operations on 365 days. We cannot have any downtime where the full site has gone down because this site is used for central applications.

I am the one who implemented it. Overall, there were just two people involved from our side. There was me and one more person. Because it was a new product, we also had a representative from Zerto as a standby. He would just watch our screen while we were implementing it. When we got stuck somewhere, he would help us. Because this was a DR site and it was a little far off, we wanted to make sure that everything went smoothly.

In terms of maintenance, so far, it did not require any maintenance from our side.

Having a solution like this is similar to having insurance. When you have a car accident, that is when you know the value of your insurance. Similarly, you cannot put a definite value on a solution like this till something happens, but there is peace of mind in knowing that the software is there, the VMs are there, and we can test it anytime. That is the true value.

It is economical as compared to other brands. 

We are an HPE shop. Zerto was procured by HPE, and we were looking for a DR solution. We went for Zerto because of its simplicity and ease of installation. We did an on-site proof of concept of Zerto for a year. We liked it and purchased it.

The only other product that we looked at was the VMware one because of the orchestrator. We did not look at any other products. I know that Veeam also has the same features that Zerto has. We had some discussions, but we never looked into it. Once we had a product that was easy to install, we did not feel the need to compare. It was doing what we wanted it to do.

Another factor for going for Zerto was that its price was economical. My boss, who is the CTO, liked its licensing scheme. It was much more economical as compared to VMware, and that is why we went ahead with Zerto.

Before implementing this solution, in terms of preparation for disaster recovery, you have to identify the business applications that are critical to your environment. You have to scope that out and make sure you have your VMs accounted for because licensing depends on the number of VMs. With a product like Zerto, you have to know the number of VMs and the size of data you are going to sync. These are the two factors that you have to look into for disaster recovery. 

Zerto is way better than other products. Installation is done with the click of a button. Everything happens in the background. You do not have to worry about it. As a product, we have not had any issues so far. However, we have not yet done a full-fledged disaster recovery. We have done minor testing, and we want to do major testing. As of now, I am very happy with the product. It does not need any further modifications. It is simple. It is nice. It is easy to execute, so I would keep it that way.

We have not yet used Zerto for immutable data copies. I have been playing around to migrate a VM and see how it works. So far, we have only used it to sync up the SAP side. Our SAP stuff is already synced up, and we have done some testing of it, but we have not done any disaster recovery.  

I have not had a chance to assess Zerto for blocking unknown threats and attacks. We are mainly interested in using it for disaster recovery.

Overall, I would rate Zerto a ten out of ten.

Our use cases are disaster recovery and long-term retention against ransomware.

Zerto was part of our technology transformation initiative about five years ago, not only to protect our customers' intellectual property that we create for them, but also to protect our organization as a whole.

In a way, it has reduced the number of staff involved in a data recovery situation since we are contracted with insurance companies to help us recover. This solution allows us to be more self-sufficient, using our existing staff to recover.

Zerto has helped reduce our organization's DR testing to seconds to minutes. We have been able to save probably close to 200 hours a year.

If something happens, and we are out and about, I would like to be able to interface with it on our mobile phones. That would be great.

I have been using it for about five years.

Their technical support is really good. They do quarterly tests to make sure everything is working and spot on. Our Zerto engineer is local, so we work with him quite often just to make sure everything is working.

I would rate the technical support as 11 out of 10.

Positive

It replaced Veeam. Zerto is a lot easier.

Prior to Zerto, when we were looking at our traditional disaster recovery, we were looking at 30 days plus.

We have been able to reduce our RPO and RTO to a matter of seconds to minutes versus what our technology committee established as our metrics, which was 30 minutes versus a few days.

Knock on wood, we have never had downtime. However, it has given us better peace of mind.

I would rate Zerto as 11 out of 10.

We work in a public safety environment and we use Zerto for disaster recovery.

It allowed us to migrate very quickly from our old environment to the new environment that we're building out. We were able to move the entire environment over to our new VMware 7 environment within a matter of hours.

Because we work in a public safety environment, we can't have downtime. We've had a couple of situations where we had to do some firmware upgrades. We would fail over to the DR site and Zerto helped us get back up really quickly. It was fast.

We set it up strictly for DR so that we can fail over and do a test failover without causing any problems.

And from the standpoint of ease of use, Zerto is a third faster for recovery compared to other solutions.

The ease of use is one of the best features. Previously, we were using Site Replication Manager with VMware and it was a little bit cumbersome. With Zerto, we liked the fact that it was hardware-agnostic and we were able to spin it up pretty quickly and get it working.

We had a situation where we had to relicense VMs once they were moved over. We later found out that that feature is built-in, but it's not easy to find. The way it's done is that you have to go to the target site to turn it on. If that were explained a little bit better up front, that would be helpful.

I have been using Zerto for four or five years.

It seems to be very stable. We haven't had any problems.

My counterpart is the person who takes care of this side of things, but from what I've heard, he's had really good luck with their tech support.

We used VMware's SRM. That old solution was a little bit cumbersome and Zerto seemed to be easier to use. It was more straightforward. It was much quicker to set up and the day-to-day use is easier.

I was involved on the VMware side, getting things ready for Zerto. My counterpart was the one who actually implemented Zerto. I believe the Zerto implementation was pretty straightforward. The only complexity involved was learning how it worked.

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.

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.