We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Rubrik Competitors and Alternatives

Get our free report covering Veeam Software, Cohesity, Commvault, and other competitors of Rubrik. Updated: November 2021.
554,382 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Rubrik competitors and alternatives

John Leitgeb
IT Director at Kingston Technology
Real User
Top 20
Easy-to-use interface, good telemetry data, and the support is good

Pros and Cons

  • "If we lost our data center and had to recover it, Zerto would save us a great deal of time. In our testing, we have found that recovering the entire data center would be completed within a day."
  • "The onset of configuring an environment in the cloud is difficult and could be easier to do."

What is our primary use case?

Originally, I was looking for a solution that allowed us to replicate our critical workloads to a cloud target and then pay a monthly fee to have it stored there. Then, if some kind of disaster happened, we would have the ability to instantiate or spin up those workloads in a cloud environment and provide access to our applications. That was the ask of the platform.

We are a manufacturing company, so our environment wouldn't be drastically affected by a webpage outage. However, depending on the applications that are affected, being a $15 billion dollar company, there could be a significant impact.

How has it helped my organization?

Zerto is very good in terms of providing continuous data protection. Now bear in mind the ability to do this in the cloud is newer to them than what they've always done traditionally on-premises. Along the way, there are some challenges when working with a cloud provider and having the connectivity methodology to replicate the VMs from on-premises to Azure, through the Zerto interface, and make sure that there's a healthy copy of Zerto in the cloud. For that mechanism, we spent several months working with Zerto, getting it dialed in to support what we needed to do. Otherwise, all of the other stuff that they've been known to do has worked flawlessly.

The interface is easy to use, although configuring the environment, and the infrastructure around it, wasn't so clear. The interface and its dashboard are very good and very nice to use. The interface is very telling in that it provides a lot of the telemetry that you need to validate that your backup is healthy, that it's current, and that it's recoverable.

A good example of how Zerto has improved the way our organization functions is that it has allowed us to decommission repurposed hardware that we were using to do the same type of DR activity. In the past, we would take old hardware and repurpose it as DR hardware, but along with that you have to have the administration expertise, and you have to worry about third-party support on that old hardware. It inevitably ends up breaking down or having problems, and by taking that out of the equation, with all of the DR going to the cloud, all that responsibility is now that of the cloud provider. It frees up our staff who had to babysit the old hardware. I think that, in and of itself, is enough reason to use Zerto.

We've determined that the ability to spin up workloads in Azure is the fastest that we've ever seen because it sits as a pre-converted VM. The speed to convert it and the speed to bring it back on-premises is compelling. It's faster than the other ways that we've tried or used in the past. On top of that, they employ their own compression and deduplication in terms of replicating to a target. As such, the whole capability is much more efficient than doing it the way we were doing it with Rubrik.

If we lost our data center and had to recover it, Zerto would save us a great deal of time. In our testing, we have found that recovering the entire data center would be completed within a day. In the past, it was going to take us close to a month. 

Using Zerto does not mean that we can reduce the number of people involved in a failover.  You still need to have expertise with VMware, Zerto, and Azure. It may not need to be as in-depth, and it's not as complicated as some other platforms might be. The person may not have to be such an expert because the platform is intuitive enough that somebody of that level can administer it. Ultimately, you still need a human body to do it.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is the speed at which it can instantiate VMs. When I was doing the same thing with Rubrik, if I had 30 VMs on Azure and I wanted to bring them up live, it would take perhaps 24 hours. Having 1,000 VMs to do, it would be very time-consuming. With Zerto, I can bring up almost 1,000 VMs in an hour. This is what I really liked about Zerto, although it can do a lot of other things, as well.

The deduplication capabilities are good.

What needs improvement?

The onset of configuring an environment in the cloud is difficult and could be easier to do. When it's on-premises, it's a little bit easier because it's more of a controlled environment. It's a Windows operating system on a server and no matter what server you have, it's the same.

However, when you are putting it on AWS, that's a different procedure than installing it on Azure, which is a different procedure than installing it on GCP, if they even support it. I'm not sure that they do. In any event, they could do a better job in how to build that out, in terms of getting the product configured in a cloud environment.

There are some other things they can employ, in terms of the setup of the environment, that would make things a little less challenging. For example, you may need to have an Azure expert on the phone because you require some middleware expertise. This is something that Zerto knew about but maybe could have done a better job of implementing it in their product.

Their long-term retention product has room for improvement, although that is something that they are currently working on.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been with Zerto for approximately 10 years. We were probably one of the first adopters on the platform.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

With respect to stability, on-premises, it's been so many years of having it there that it's baked in. It is stable, for sure. The cloud-based deployment is getting there. It's strong enough in terms of the uptime or resilience that we feel confident about getting behind a solution like this.

It is important to consider that any issues with instability could be related to other dependencies, like Azure or network connectivity or our on-premises environment. When you have a hybrid environment between on-premises and the cloud, it's never going to be as stable as a purely on-premises or purely cloud-based deployment. There are always going to be complications.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This is a scalable product. We tested scalability starting with 10 VMs and went right up to 100, and there was no difference. We are an SMB, on the larger side, so I wouldn't know what would happen if you tried to run it with 50,000 VMs. However, in an SMB-sized environment, it can definitely handle or scale to what we do, without any problems.

This is a global solution for us and there's a potential that usage will increase. Right now, it is protecting all of our criticals but not everything. What I mean is that some VMs in a DR scenario would not need to be spun up right away. Some could be done a month later and those particular ones would just fall into our normal recovery process from our backup. 

The backup side is what we're waiting on, or relying on, in terms of the next ask from Zerto. Barring that, we could literally use any other backup solution along with Zerto. I'm perfectly fine doing that but I think it would be nice to use Zerto's backup solution in conjunction with their DR, just because of the integration between the two.  

How are customer service and technical support?

In general, the support is pretty good. They were just acquired by HP, and I'm not sure if that's going to make things better or worse. I've had experiences on both sides, but I think overall their support's been very good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Zerto has not yet replaced any of our legacy backup products but it has replaced our DR solution. Prior to Zerto, we were using Rubrik as our DR solution. We switched to Zerto and it was a much better solution to accommodate what we wanted to do. The reason we switched had to do with support for VMware.

When we were using Rubrik, one of the problems we had was that if I instantiated the VM on Azure, it's running as an Azure VM, not as a VMware VM. This meant that if I needed to bring it back on-premises from Azure, I needed to convert it back to a VMware VM. It was running as a Hyper-V VM in Azure, but I needed an ESX version or a VMware version. At the time, Rubrik did not have a method to convert it back, so this left us stuck.

There are not a lot of other DR solutions like this on the market. There is Site Recovery Manager from VMware, and there is Zerto. After so many years of using it, I find that it is a very mature platform and I consider it easy to use. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is complex. It may be partly due to our understanding of Azure, which I would not put at an expert level. I would rate our skill at Azure between a neophyte and the mid-range in terms of understanding the connectivity points with it. In addition to that, we had to deal with a cloud service provider.

Essentially, we had to change things around, and I would not say that it was easy. It was difficult and definitely needed a third party to help get the product stood up.

Our deployment was completed within a couple of months of ending the PoC. Our PoC lasted between 30 and 60 days, over which time we were able to validate it. It took another 60 days to get it up and running after we got the green light to purchase it.

We're a multisite location, so the implementation strategy started with getting it baked at our corporate location and validating it. Then, build out an Azure footprint globally and then extend the product into those environments. 

What about the implementation team?

We used a company called Insight to assist us with implementation. We had a previous history with one of their engineers, from previous work that we had done. We felt that he would be a good person to walk us through the implementation of Zerto. That, coupled with the fact that Zerto engineers were working with us as well. We had a mix of people supporting the project.

We have an infrastructure architect who's heading the project. He validates the environment, builds it out with the business partners and the vendor, helps figure out how it should be operationalized, configure it, and then it gets passed to our data protection group who has admins that will basically administrate the platform and it maintains itself.

Once the deployment is complete, maintaining the solution is a half-person effort. There are admins who have a background in data protection, backup products, as well as virtualization and understanding of VMware. A typical infrastructure administrator is capable of administering the platform.

What was our ROI?

Zerto has very much saved us money by enabling us to do DR in the cloud, rather than in our physical data center. To do what we want to do and have that same type of hardware, to be able to stand up on it and have that hardware at the ready with support and maintenance, would be huge compared to what I'm doing.

By the way, we are doing what is considered a poor man's DR. I'm not saying that I'm poor, but that's the term I place on it because most people have a replica of their hardware in another environment. One needs to pay for those hardware costs, even though it's not doing anything other than sitting there, just in case. Using Zerto, I don't have to pay for that hardware in the cloud.

All I pay for is storage, and that's much less than what the hardware cost would be. To run that environment with everything on there, just sitting, would cost a factor of ten to one.

I would use this ratio with that because the storage that it replicates to is not the fastest. There's no VMs, there's no compute or memory associated with replicating this, so all I'm paying for is the storage.

So in one case, I'm paying only for storage, and in the other case, I have to pay for storage and for hardware, compute, and connectivity. If you add all that up into what storage would be, I think it would be that storage is inexpensive, but compute added up with maintenance and everything, and networking connectivity between there and the soft costs and man-hours to support that environment, just to have it ready, I would say ten to one is probably a fair assessment.

When it comes to DR, there is no real return on investment. The return comes in the form of risk mitigation. If the question is whether I think that I spent the least amount of money to provide a resilient environment then I would answer yes. Without question.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

If you are an IT person and you think that DR is too expensive then the cloud option from Zerto is good because anyone can afford to use it, as far as getting one or two of their criticals protected. The real value of the product is that if you didn't have any DR strategy, because you thought you couldn't afford it, you can at least have some form of DR, including your most critical apps up and running to support the business.

A lot of IT people roll the dice and they take chances that that day will never come. This way, they can save money. My advice is to look at the competition out there, such as VMware Site Recovery, and like anything else, try to leverage the best price you can.

There are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees for the product itself. However, for the environment that it resides in, there certainly are. With Azure, for example, there are several additional costs including connectivity, storage, and the VPN. These ancillary costs are not trivial and you definitely have to spend some time understanding what they are and try to control them.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I looked at several solutions during the evaluation period. When Zerto came to the table, it was very good at doing backup. The other products could arguably instantiate and do the DR but they couldn't do everything that Zerto has been doing. Specifically, Zerto was handling that bubbling of the environment to be able to test it and ensure that there is no cross-contamination. That added feature, on top of the fact that it can do it so much faster than what Rubrik could, was the compelling reason why we looked there.

Along the way, I looked at Cohesity and Veeam and a few other vendors, but they didn't have an elegant solution or an elegant way of doing what I wanted to do, which is sending copies to an expensive cloud storage target, and then having the mechanism to instantiate them. The mechanism wasn't as elegant with some of those vendors.

What other advice do I have?

We initially started with the on-premises version, where we replicated our global DR from the US to Taiwan. Zerto recently came out with a cloud-based, enterprise variant that gives you the ability to use it on-premises or in the cloud. With this, we've migrated our licenses to a cloud-based strategy for disaster recovery.

We are in the middle of evaluating their long-term retention, or long-term backup solution. It's very new to us. In the same way that Veeam, and Rubrik, and others were trying to get into Zerto's business, Zerto's now trying to get into their business as far as the backup solution.

I think it's much easier to do backup than what Zerto does for DR, so I don't think it will be very difficult for them to do table stakes back up, which is file retention for multiple targets, and that kind of thing.

Right now, I would say they're probably at the 70% mark as far as what I consider to be a success, but each version they release gets closer and closer to being a certifiable, good backup solution.

We have not had to recover our data after a ransomware attack but if our whole environment was encrypted, we have several ways to recover it. Zerto is the last resort for us but if we ever have to do that, I know that we can recover our environment in hours instead of days.

If that day ever occurs, which would be a very bad day if we had to recover at that level, then Zerto will be very helpful. We've done recoveries in the past where the on-premises restore was not healthy, and we've been able to recover them very fast. It isn't the onesie twosies that are compelling in terms of recovery because most vendors can provide that. It's the sheer volume of being able to restore so many at once that's the compelling factor for Zerto.

My advice for anybody who is implementing Zerto is to get a good cloud architect. Spend the time to build out your design, including your IP scheme, to support the feature sets and capabilities of the product. That is where the work needs to be done, more so than the Zerto products themselves. Zerto is pretty simple to get up and running but it's all the work ahead in the deployment or delivery that needs to be done. A good architect or cloud person will help with this.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using Zerto is that it requires good planning but at the end of it, you'll have a reasonable disaster recovery solution. If you don't currently have one then this is certainly something that you should consider.

I would rate Zerto a ten out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud

If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

Microsoft Azure
Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Flag as inappropriate
TM
Account Manager at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 10
Reliable, affordable and user friendly

Pros and Cons

  • "Veeam Backup & Replication is a great alternative to what is out there. Some of the backups just allow an agent backup to the cloud. You can back up a thousand different ways, but this is a great way to keep a customer and a company in compliance in that they've got their data secure onsite and offsite. The data being transferred to the NAS at the customer's location and also the data being sent to the cloud is encrypted in transit and it's also encrypted at rest so that nobody is going to be able to hack into that. No one will have the keys to do that."
  • "Veeam is good up until 300 VMs."

What is our primary use case?

Our primary use case with Veeam Backup & Replication is to backup critical data. We would recommend that a person put on a Veeam backup service so that in a disaster recovery scenario you set what has to come back up first because that is going to be the critical information that has to go back up as quickly as possible. You can put anything on critical servers, but we recommend that you use it for critical data that it is going to be restored within a four hour timeframe.

Veeam Backup & Replication can be deployed as agent-based or you can set it up to replicate back to a NAS, some sort of device onsite, so that a copy of your data goes to the device onsite and another copy goes to a data center for a backup as well. Then, if that server crashes, the device that's at the location has the latest copy of the good data from where they get the backup.

How has it helped my organization?

Veeam Backup & Replication has most definitely improved our organization because it saves the IT a lot of headache. 

What is most valuable?

Veeam Backup & Replication is a great alternative to what is out there. Some of the backups just allow an agent backup to the cloud. You can back up a thousand different ways, but this is a great way to keep a customer and a company in compliance in that they've got their data secure onsite and offsite. The data being transferred to the NAS at the customer's location and also the data being sent to the cloud is encrypted in transit and it's also encrypted at rest so that nobody is going to be able to hack into that. No one will have the keys to do that.

The dashboard is very, very easy to understand. We do demonstrations all the time with customers just to show them. If they've lost particular files because of a server going down, we can retrieve those files for them and quickly bring those files back up. So in a disaster recovery where you've got a location that's either been hit with a tornado, a hurricane, an earthquake, or whatever the disaster might be, this company and customer has to be up, then this data is secured offsite as well, and can be pulled down either to a VM, a virtual machine, or to another physical server. It is just a matter of how fast your internet connection is.

What needs improvement?

Until internet connectivity becomes standard all over the country and all over the world, as far as minimum speeds, the main thing would be just making sure that your data is being transferred as quickly as possible, that the data transfers are seated correctly, and that the replication takes place and is monitored. The service can be managed or unmanaged, it just depends on the customer's IT ability as to how much or how little we can help.

There is always room for improvement on anything, but at this point I think it's perfect. But I'm sure there are other things that customers are wanting that Veeam could probably put in their next update or patch. But at this point I don't have any information on that.

As companies grow, it just depends on what their needs are as to what we can help them with as far as the recovery is concerned. Larger businesses with more than 300 VMs would be a perfect scenario for Rubrik. Veeam, I think is good up until 300 VMs. With other services that we have, it could be lower than a hundred VMs, but it seems that Veeam is in a good spot.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Veeam Backup & Replication for probably the last four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This solution runs very smoothly unless there is a server that goes offline on a customer's site that we don't know about, but other than that, the service is rock solid.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is pretty much straightforward. It's just like updating software. For anybody that has a little bit of sense about how to update services it is pretty straightforward and simple.

Our clients are a mixture of small, medium and large businesses and they are all over the country.

How are customer service and technical support?

I do sales, so I'm the one that is responsible for selling the sizzle. My IT folks, my engineers, are the ones that face Veeam the company. I would say that the majority of the companies that we deal with in backup and recovery are very, very responsive and I feel Veeam is the same way. It's a great software package, it is inexpensive and it does a lot of things that IT companies and people in general want to see.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We use EVault software and Carbonite backups, it just depends on the customer. If you can tolerate 12 to 24 hours of being out of service, then we have other backup services that are right in the ballpark in pricing, but just older technologies. Nowadays everything is like McDonald's and I want it now. I want my hamburger now and I want my data now. It is getting to where customers want that faster RTO and RPO so that they can have their company back up and making money as quickly as possible.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is pretty straightforward if you've got a person that knows how things go. Most midsize and large companies will have an IT person on staff that would understand that. If they don't understand it, of course our guys, our engineers, can train them for that and show them which way to go. But normally IT people are pretty familiar with dashboards.

What other advice do I have?

My advice to anyone considering Veeam Backup & Replication would be to definitely demo it and see what you think about it because you can't try it before you buy it, and see how it works in your environment. I'm not too sure if there are any trials that go on for a month at a time, but it depends on the customer. If they decide that this is something good for them, then we move forward with it and adjust as we go. But the majority of our customers know what Veeam is and have seen the product out there, because I send a lot of information out via LinkedIn and send emails to my customers about those services. It would just depend on whether it was an attorney's office, a hospital, whatever he is, but those folks would want to have their data as quickly as possible.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Veeam Backup & Replication a 10.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
JB
Principal at a venture capital & private equity firm with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Is especially flexible for tape environments

Pros and Cons

  • "If you are running on a legacy tape environment NetBackup is best."
  • "The flip side about NetBackup is that it is not policy-based."

What is most valuable?

In terms of most valuable features, I like the fact that if you have a bunch of backups, NetBackup gives you the ability to have one master and multiple media servers. What that means is you can have a bunch of sites that all have libraries and you have one master server that controls all the functionality of all the jobs. You don't have to deploy a standup NetBackup solution at each site. You can just deploy the media version for their tape library and have one master server that controls all the jobs.

What I also like about NetBackup, as opposed to most solutions like Rubrik and Cohesity, which don't really support backing up to tape environments, is that NetBackup does. If you are running on a legacy tape environment NetBackup is best. Most of the guys I've seen that use NetBackup have a tape environment.

What needs improvement?

The flip side about NetBackup is that it is not policy-based. NetBackup doesn't give you that feature. For example, Rubrik is a policy-based type of app, so when you create a backup job with it, say you have 30 servers in that backup, you can make one policy and apply it to them all. NetBackup doesn't do that. With NetBackup, you need to create a backup job for each server you want to back up and for each server you have. That is the only thing I don't really like about NetBackup. I can use Rubrik or Cohesity where you can create one policy, and apply it to many servers at one time where with NetBackup, you can't do that. You create a backup for each server. That takes more time.

If they can improve on policy-based backups, that would be great.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Veritas NetBackup for about 10 or 11 years.

I think that the last version I used was version six. They're probably up to eight or 10 now. But really nothing has changed. Maybe additional features from the last time I saw it, but not really much has changed. I think they made a version 10.

The last time I went online I didn't really see much difference from a feature perspective since I began using it. I think the GUI interface looks a little different, a little cleaner, but functionality-wise, I didn't really see much change.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

In terms of stability, no problem. Like I said, if you have multiple tape libraries, you can have one master that has a bunch of multiple media services. So you can have tape libraries all scattered at different sites. The one master server you set up controls all the job functions. When you log into it, it just kicks off the jobs and you can pause jobs. For different sites, you can keep the job turned off. It controls all the functions and all the backup jobs for all the multiple sites. That's all the master server does. It doesn't actually do any backup. It's responsible for making the kicked off jobs to get backed up.

How are customer service and support?

Their customer support is not bad. I don't have any issues with technical support. Technical support is okay.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is very easy. Commvault has a lot more convoluted setup. NetBackup is really easy to set up. I've never used Commvault, but from other colleagues I know who use it, you need professional services because it's so convoluted to set up. NetBackup is not that convoluted. Commvault is nice. It's a very nice application, don't get me wrong. I'm not going to put it down or anything like that. Once it's running, it's a good product. But from being exposed to Commvault a little, I like NetBackup better. I just think the downside to NetBackup is that it's not policy driven. That's the only thing I don't like about it.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Pricing depends on the number of licenses and on the number of servers you have. It varies based on the number of servers that you're trying to back up.

What other advice do I have?

My advice to anyone considering Veritas NetBackup is to validate. If you have multiple sites, it's better to have the setup. If you have multiple sites that are running a tape library and media servers, you can set up one master server. But if you only have one site, you can set up a backup as a media server and a master server. If you have multiple sites, you want to look at how many sites you are backing up. If it's multiple sites, then you want to set them up with one master server.

If you only have one site, then you have the media server and the master, and it does both. That would be my suggestion - to validate if there is more than one site you're going to be backing up. If you are going to be backing up more than one site, you want to properly set up the first time. If you only have one site you're backing up, set it up as a master media. If you have multiple sites to set up, you want to set them up as media servers and then set up one master server that controls all the functions for the remaining sites. That is really the biggest thing, to be honest with you.

You might want to confirm if it supports backing up to Azure or AWS. Some people want to do long-term archiving. You want to confirm whether or not NetBackup supports backup to Azure or Google Cloud or AWS from a long-term archiving perspective.

Some people backup to tape. Some people are going to say that you can't back up the disk with NetBackup. I just don't know if it supports backing up to cloud providers.

On a scale of one to ten, I'd say NetBackup is an eight. It's pretty strong. I don't have other problems. I would say it's definitely a strong eight. It's a pretty good product.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
reviewer1276815
Network Administration Supervisor at a insurance company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Easy to use, improves efficiency, has good support, and saves us time and money

Pros and Cons

  • "The restores are easy to do and have made it so that we can incorporate restores into our troubleshooting processes."
  • "We would love to see direct compatibility with HPE Simplivity, which we also leverage."

What is our primary use case?

We have two primary use cases. The first was a replacement for magnetic tape backups via Backup Exec. We were tired of continually handling physical tapes, the increasingly long backup windows, and the cost of all of the tape infrastructure. We are backing up about 20TB of data between VMware and legacy NAS appliances.

Our second use case was a replacement for a legacy IBM/NetApp device and a legacy NETGEAR NAS. Both devices were substantially older with no inline compression or dedupe. We were running out of space at a time when we knew that modern storage features such as compression and deduplication would give us substantial space savings.

How has it helped my organization?

The change has been night and day. Our backups have gotten MUCH faster and MUCH simpler. Our weekend full-backups were taking close to 48 hours to write to LTO8 tape. We are capturing a full backup nightly now in under three hours for all of our VMware and NAS data. We are able to replicate that data to our colocation facility seamlessly.

The storage features have been easy to use right out of the box. We have been able to provision "copies" of our legacy NAS devices into Cohesity for testing purposes in seconds. Speed is substantially faster than our legacy devices, even with Cohesity's lowest tier of storage.

What is most valuable?

The backup features have saved us enormous amounts of time and money already. We have been able to stop buying media, stop licensing BE, stop paying for service on the physical backup server, stop paying for service on tape library, and stop paying for another Windows Server license.

The restores are easy to do and have made it so that we can incorporate restores into our troubleshooting processes. The fact that we can provision copies of storage in a few seconds has been great for testing. Cohesity has a growing pool of third-party apps that can run on your Cohesity environment. Antivirus tools and tools to analyze file usage patterns are things we are looking to utilize in the near future.

What needs improvement?

There were a few things that required quick support calls in order to get to function correctly. We were told that the issues that impacted us were going to be corrected on the next release and would not impact other customers.

We would love to see direct compatibility with HPE Simplivity, which we also leverage.

Cohesity could do a little better job communicating features in new releases and helping customers to understand when features will be released. For example, I found literature indicating that version 6.3.1 would have support for Active Directory backups when installed. That feature appears to have been pushed to version 6.4, but is still available in 6.3.1 if you call support and have them toggle it on.

For how long have I used the solution?

We have had Cohesity installed for about six months.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This solution is very stable. Upgrades are easy and do not require downtime. Set and forget.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We haven't had to scale and don't anticipate needing to do so in that we bought enough capacity to last us for some time. However, based on my other experiences with the software, I don't think this would be an issue.

How are customer service and technical support?

We have had a few support tickets, which have been dealt with quickly and appropriately. We did have one ticket where we requested an escalation and this was also handled appropriately. Support did a good job of periodically checking with us to verify that the fix resolved our issue, which it did.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We previously used Backup Exec teamed with an IBM Tape Library for magnetic tape backups. Legacy IBM/NetApp and NETGEAR NAS devices were also replaced by Cohesity.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very straightforward. It took a couple of hours for each cluster at each of our sites.

What about the implementation team?

Our Cohesity sales engineer along with an engineer from our VAR assisted in getting the solution in place. Each cluster in each location took a day to deploy.

What was our ROI?

We have not calculated a formal ROI, but we have already saved tons of time. I expect the system to probably pay off within the first two years.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We looked at Rubrik and StorageCraft.

Rubrik seemed like a solid product but was substantially more expensive then Cohesity. They also did not do anything outside of backups. StorageCraft offers good value but doesn't have the same expansive features as Cohesity.

What other advice do I have?

We have been very happy with Cohesity and it has solved several major problems for us. At the same time, they are aggressively adding and further refining features.

We are now backing up our O365 email via Cohesity, which is something we didn't even know it could do when we purchased it.

They really are developing a great platform for unstructured data and backups.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PG
Backup Administrator at a manufacturing company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Allows us to easily deploy multiple clients at a time and back up multiple clients

Pros and Cons

  • "We use Commvault Command Center for backups and restores and for the creation of new clients. We use it for other functionalities as well. In terms of VMware, I can go directly to the Command Center, enter VMware, and I can search it directly. Command Center is very useful and it can be used for more advanced techniques."
  • "I need documentation for Azure backups. One expectation that I have is regarding PDF documentation. When I was trying to browse the documentation, I could not locate that."

What is our primary use case?

Right now we are using on-premise and cloud backups. We run 300 to 400 jobs per day.

How has it helped my organization?

Compared to other products out there, we have found that Commvault is best suited for our needs. We can easily restore and deploy the data.

Previously, before the introduction of Commvault, we used other software including Rubrik. But with Commvault we can deploy multiple clients at a time and we can back up multiple clients without any issues. Right now, we are using about 1,000 VMs. Before Commvault we used to back up about 200 servers and 100 VMs. Previously, backups took nine hours. With Commvault it takes minutes.

The solution definitely helps our admins to minimize the time they spend on backup tasks and to spend time on other projects. If we need to run backups for dozens of servers, it can be done in one minute because it can be done in a click. We can select the backups by selecting the client computer groups. We can categorize those groups and, based on that categorization, we can run the backups and we can restore the VMs as well. It can be done in minutes. Running backups twice a week, it saves us about 5 to 6 hours each time.

It is also saving us on infrastructure costs and has helped optimize infrastructure usage, like storage space. By using Commvault we have saved about 3 TBs of space.

We have used it to recover data when there was a problem with our database. It took about four hours to bring the data back. But recently, we introduced HA and it has saved us more time. With HA the data can be brought up in one hour. With other solutions it would take 10 to 24 hours.

What is most valuable?

We do monitor all the backups using the user interface. It is user-friendly, easy to navigate, and easy to create solutions with it. It is very comfortable. We can do multiple operations at a time.

We use Commvault Command Center for backups and restores and for the creation of new clients. We use it for other functionalities as well. In terms of VMware, I can go directly to the Command Center, enter VMware, and I can search it directly. Command Center is very useful and it can be used for more advanced techniques.

The cloud support is good. The on-premises cloud is working for us as is traditional cloud. All the clouds we're using are working with Commvault. We have Office365 and Azure.

What needs improvement?

I need documentation for Azure backups. One expectation that I have is regarding PDF documentation. When I was trying to browse the documentation, I could not locate that. The documentation should be in PDF format where it can be downloaded easily.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Commvault for the past five years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability has been good. We haven't had any issues.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scaling can be done easily.

I am now looking into an orchestrator. High-availability is another future use case for us.

How are customer service and technical support?

We do not have any issues with support. Everything is fine. Commvault helps in fixing any issues and they help us to deploy the data whenever we need help. And they provide the security as well.

In the first year we raised many issues, but now it is easier for us to manage. We refer to the documentation.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We used to use Rubrik but we found Commvault to be a better solution. It provided time savings, handled more complexity, and provided more security.

How was the initial setup?

With guidance from their team, and based on the documentation, it was easy to install. The deployment took one-and-a-half hours.

There are updates every quarter and they are getting easier to deploy.

We have about seven staff members on my team, IT analysts, who handle the solution, to account for different shifts and meal breaks, etc. Within the company there are 10 clients using it, mostly within IT.

What other advice do I have?

We are very satisfied. It is a very useful product, daily. 

Commvault is constantly developing new use cases based on customers' requirements. They are developing new features on a regular basis. In version 11, 19 new features were added. For example, in previous versions we did not have the Command Center and whenever backups failed we could not restore the data. Now, there are options for restoring the data. These kinds of advanced techniques are introduced from day to day.

Disclosure: IT Central Station contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Get our free report covering Veeam Software, Cohesity, Commvault, and other competitors of Rubrik. Updated: November 2021.
554,382 professionals have used our research since 2012.