Zerto Reviews

Replication for disaster recovery between data centers is valuable.

Zerto allows us to replicate entire systems between data centers instead of setting up replication within the applications, which sometimes is non-existent.

The backup capabilities require too much disk space and I would like to see better compression. or deduplication built in to reduce the amount of WAN traffic. It would also be nice to have it be able to monitor a VM to let you know how much bandwidth a particular VM would require to replicate.

I've been using it for nine months.

We have had no issues with the deployment.

There have been no performance issues.

Scalability is all about bandwidth, so the only issue we had was trying to guess how much bandwidth we would need.

Technical support is good.

We used point solutions for our disaster recovery needs and we were very selective about the applications we would setup with disaster recovery due to costs.

The Zerto setup is very easy. The difficult task is setting up any processes that need to be run after a failover.

This was all setup in house.

We primarily use Zerto Virtual Replication to protect groups of servers in our production data center, replicating them to a secondary site. We also protect essential test and dev servers.

I have also used it in a past role to carry out a datacenter migration project. 

The single pane of glass in Zerto Virtual Replication and ease of use is what makes Zerto different from other replication products that I have used in the past. You can clearly see if something is not quite right in your disaster recovery plan before you have an actual disaster.

Zerto has made Disaster Recover and Business Continuity Planning tests much easier and quicker. Even when doing 'Live' tests, we are able to confirm beforehand that everything looks OK. This means less time troubleshooting on the day of the test.

The product is improving all the time and I think the Zerto team have quite a good handle on things. I found the Local ZertoCON meetup/conference particularly useful to hear about different user cases. However, sometimes it feels like the QA is not great, as the previous two updates have been bug fixes.

One to three years.

• Interoperability between Hyper-V, ESX, vCloud, and AWS.
• Very easy to use
• Reliable
• Fast
• Also the architecture (on the ISP side) is designed with isolation and multi-tenancy in mind, so it's safely deployable on an ISP environment.

It allows smooth migrations which would be a lot more difficult with other technologies.

• A "manual mode" which would allow the user to failover the VMs but keeping them powered off at destination

• More powerful scripting engine

• Ability to move protected VMs between VPGs
• More reliable ETA on VPG syncronization
• root-level user for VRA installation ( at the moment the user "root" is hardcoded )
• Bandwidth throttling schedule should include days of week

I've used it for four months.

Not at all.

There were no issues.

There were no issues.

Customer Service:

Great pre-sales experience, and good support.

Technical Support:

8/10.

It was pretty straightforward.

I love the application, and it has become essential in my work.

Meets all the ticks when looking for a Disaster Recovery Product/Service. Low RPO exceptional RTS. Integrates directly with vCentre Server. Easy to use.

Needs better reporting.

It is easy to setup and manage.

Provides a simple interface for VM DR.

Needs compatibility with multi-tiered applications, such as Sharepoint, for testing.

One to two years.

No.

No.

Fair, depending on which location you get in contact with: They can be difficult to deal with and don't understand the product in which they are servicing.

Not applicable.

It is very straightforward. A simple wizard to install.

I didn't personally deal with the licensing structure.

You should evaluate Site Recovery Manager by VMware. It is more expensive, but works better.

Ensure you run an evaluation and test failovers to verify it will meet your individualized needs.

Hardware-Independent Simple configuration Easy installation Integrated with vCenter Server and vCloud Director Very low RPOs

Poor documentation Poor reporting engine Bugs with rollback procedures

Allows for semi-synchronic replication, even though it's hardware independent.