We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The data reduction feature and the ease of enabling a server in a DR location are the most valuable."
"Duplication and the speed of backup are great."
"Avamar's source side deduplication is very strong, it can easily back up remote sites' data, and not much bandwidth is required on the Avamar side."
"The deduplication feature is the best aspect of the solution."
"The installation process is pretty straightforward."
"Dell EMC Avamar is very good with endpoint backups."
"The solution is easy to use and has high performance."
"Quick incremental backups and product replication are the two highlights of the product. Once you capture a full backup, incrementals are pretty quick. It is fairly efficient from that perspective."
"The interface for this solution is excellent, and it is easy to restore files compared to other solutions."
"The solution is stable."
"The flexibility is very good."
"Veritas Backup Exec is fully compatible with different tape libraries."
"I have found the overall features of the solution very good and there is the option to backup to the cloud."
"Veritas is good for small environments."
"This is a very flexible product, which allows you to back up not only the physical environment but also the cloud environment."
"Veritas Backup Exec is easily managed."
"The management of this solution is a little bit difficult for IT administrators. They have to be trained before going through the system."
"The product could offer more integration capabilities."
"It lacks support for certain plugins, like SAP HANA, for example."
"Avamar is dependent on the hardware. It can't be implemented with ordinary storage. It can only be implemented with an EMC product. We want to have a backup solution that allows us to use independent storage and other hardware. It would be good if they can simplify its technology and make it possible to implement it with another storage. This is probably not possible because Avamar is an EMC product, and EMC would like to sell its own products."
"When you get down to doing certain things, such as somebody wants a particular file restored, the process by which you do that is stupid. You kind of have to know exactly where to look for in order to find it. Even on older backup products that I've used, I didn't have that kind of problem. If we were looking for a file with a particular kind of a name, the solution would find that file anywhere irrespective of where it resides within the backup system. So, we didn't have to know the name of the specific server, the specific timeframe, almost all the characters of the file name, and all kinds of data in order to find a file. In Avamar, we got to know these details. We've gone around and around with them on that, and their attitude seems to be that it is working just fine. There is nothing for them to improve. The organizational system of other products that I'm working with, such as Zerto and Cohesity, seems to be centered around the tasks that you would most commonly do and want to do, as opposed to we've laid it out in a really neat technical hierarchy."
"The solution could improve by having better integration and more flexibility."
"It's an expensive solution."
"It's not the best solution for big databases."
"The pricing of the solution is a bit high."
"Something within the software itself isn't quite right. There may be a bug or glitch. It will work fine for weeks and then all of a sudden it just tanks."
"I have experienced some errors, such as failures, but there have not been very many."
"It is currently missing the dynamic backup feature for virtual machines, which is available in NetWorker. I can create politics in NetWorker to add virtual machines with specific tags, but I cannot do this in Backup Exec, which is a minus point for me. Currently, a user has to send a request to the Backup administrator to add a machine to the backup, but I should be able to create rules to automatically add a new machine to the backup. This kind of functionality is very important in current times, especially when we are using cloud solutions. I should be able to create more than one stream in a policy and specify how many streams I want to run in parallel in one policy. Currently, I have to manually create more policies to backup more than one virtual machine at the same time. Their support can also be improved in terms of response time."
"There needs to be an integration process of the endpoint devices so that we don't have to redo everything for different products."
"There is no training provided, and their technicians are unaware of the features available."
"They can improve the reporting component. The reports aren't user-friendly at all. You have to download them to Excel to get statistics."
"Doesn't include disaster recovery."
"The price is fair."
"The solution is not expensive for the value one gets."
"It is expensive. The maintenance comes with it for five years. So, you buy the whole thing for five years, and your maintenance is included with it, but it's a big chunk of change upfront. We like capital expenses because we can CapEx them. We pay once every five years, so we spend a big chunk of change. You'd have to divide that out by the five years to come up with how much it costs. It's just about three-quarters of a million dollars for five years."
"When it comes to competition the price is not what is important, it's not the problem."
"The cost of the solution is very expensive."
"There is a license required for this solution."
"Licensing was generally on a per VM or terabyte basis. They changed their licensing model a couple of times and turned it into socket-based licensing, which is an improvement in their licensing model."
"It's a very high-end solution and comparable to Rubrik and Cohesity."
"It has a good price-value ratio. Its price-value ratio is better than Veeam."
"Its price is reasonable."
"It is a mid-range solution on the pricing scale."
"The price is reasonable for the features it offers."
"Licensing depends on the part of the backup you're using. If you have SQL backup, then you must have a SQL license. If you have normal data backup, you would require a license for that."
"It is not an expensive product."
"This product is priced for smaller customers."
"The price of Veritas Backup Exec could be reduced and we pay annually for the license. However, compared to other solutions, such as Veeam, it is less expensive."
Avamar is fast, efficient backup and recovery through a complete software and hardware solution. Equipped with integrated variable-length deduplication technology, Avamar facilitates fast, daily full backups for virtual environments, remote offices, enterprise applications, network-attached storage (NAS) servers, and desktops/laptops.
Backup Exec delivers powerful, flexible, and easy-to-use backup and recovery to protect your entire infrastructure whether built upon virtual, physical, or a combination of both. Backup Exec is licensed per media server, agent and option.
Dell EMC Avamar is ranked 12th in Backup and Recovery Software with 34 reviews while Veritas Backup Exec is ranked 16th in Backup and Recovery Software with 20 reviews. Dell EMC Avamar is rated 7.8, while Veritas Backup Exec is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Dell EMC Avamar writes "Unlimited scalability, very stable, and ties very well with VMware API". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Veritas Backup Exec writes "Excellent backup capabilities with good technical support and a fairly easy initial setup". Dell EMC Avamar is most compared with Dell EMC NetWorker, Veeam Backup & Replication, Dell EMC PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), Dell EMC PowerProtect Data Manager and Rubrik, whereas Veritas Backup Exec is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Veritas NetBackup, Acronis Backup, Commvault and Veritas NetBackup Appliance. See our Dell EMC Avamar vs. Veritas Backup Exec report.
See our list of best Backup and Recovery Software vendors.
We monitor all Backup and Recovery Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.