IBM Tivoli CDP for Files vs OpenText Data Protector comparison

"The restoration and infrastructure is extremely reliable."

"The dashboards in Micro Focus Data Protector are very good. They are similar to the dashboards in Veeam Backup & Replication."

"The tool's most valuable aspect is its ease of management. It was not complex. In terms of features, I can mention a couple of things. For example, if you need to restore a VM, you can do it with multiple streams in OpenText Data Protector, which is an advantage over Commvault, from what I've noticed, having worked with multiple tools. Another thing is the Oracle backups; configuring Oracle backups is much easier in OpenText Data Protector."

"If you have an idea of what you are doing, it's very flexible and very stable."

"The solution is easy to use."

"What we find most valuable in Micro Focus Data Protector is that it provides Japanese data protection, for example, it protects information such as the full Japanese name, address, etc."

"It is a traditional backup model. If you talk about file server and the official Windows database, it's a stable product."

"The initial setup was relatively easy."

"The solution allows us to be able to backup and exchange directly, to backup Microsoft exchange."

"We would like to have the opportunity to omit data from being backed up. For example, we have three virtual machines, each with three disks. When running the backup, it will automatically take each disk rather than allowing us to select what data we want backed."

"People prefer Veeam because the interface is easier, and Data Protector is difficult in comparison."

"If you compare the solution with the same specific features and enhancements on another solution, Data Protector is expensive. This is especially true when compared to, for example, Veeam."

"It's very expensive compared to Veeam and other similar solutions."

"Many of our users complain about the GUI. You still need to rely on the command line interface. Because it originated as a Unix system, Data Protector is still a command line-driven solution, which makes it seem rather dated compared to systems that are built around a GUI from day one. It doesn't affect the functionality, but some people don't find it user-friendly."

"The downside of the flexibility on offer is if you over-configure it, it may fail to function as some configurations may not match."

"The technical support is poor and should be improved."

"I don't like this solution so much because it's very technical and compared to Commvault and Veeam, it's not so user-friendly. The interface needs improvement."

"We have so many specific technological cracks in Micro Focus, but we are not getting the features, facilities, or coordination between the global delivery centers and the R&D team that we need to express our ideas."

"It's expensive, but it's worth for it due to the volume of critical information within our database. We are currently paying about $22,000 per year."

"It is more affordable compared to other vendors."

"Data Protector's pricing is very competitive and we have no issues in this regard. I would give it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing."

"The license for the solution is very expensive compared to the other products in the market."

"The licensing cost is too high."

"Pricing/licensing is Data Protector's single best offering. In its most basic environment, the only license required is for whatever target device is required."

"The pricing is neither too expensive nor very cheap."

"Pricing for Micro Focus Data Protector is reasonable."

"The pricing is acceptable for enterprise level companies, but it's not acceptable for small- and medium-sized businesses. Micro Focus Data Protector is not an enterprise level solution, and it should cover small- and medium-sized businesses with acceptable prices."