Carbonite acquired Double-Take, a data replication and disaster recovery option, in early 2017. The technology now powers Carbonite Availability, the now Carbonite supported high availability and data replication product.
N/A
HPE Zerto Software
Score 8.7 out of 10
Enterprise companies (1,001+ employees)
HPE Zerto Software aims to enable customers to run an always-on business by simplifying the protection, recovery, and mobility of on-premises and cloud applications.
N/A
Pricing
Carbonite Availability
HPE Zerto Software
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Carbonite Availability
HPE Zerto Software
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
Optional
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Carbonite Availability
HPE Zerto Software
Considered Both Products
Carbonite Availability
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Carbonite Availability
Carbonite Availability does an outstanding job competing against competitors like Druva and Veeam. It provides useful tools that every organization needs in this day and age. Companies will rely on Carbonite Availability more and more as IT organizations become ever more …
Zerto is a very nice tool when performing virtual to virtual replication. If you were to add a physical server in the mix, it would not be able to handle that server or the data on it.
Veeam is a way is similar to Zerto where it only has the ability to handle virtual to virtual …
It's a cost effective solution for our smaller clients. However since doubletake is quite different from RecoverPoint. I can't do an apples to apples comparison.
I think Rubrik, VEEAM and Zerto are great products, really depends on the use case. Zerto is probably the best real time replication technology available for VMs to a single or multiple DR datacenter. They claim they have backup capabilities but they are not in the ballpark of …
Migrations from Hyper-V to VMWare. This something VMware cloud availiblity not can do. Whit migrations from several platforms to VMWare, this is realy a missing part in VMware Cloud availity and a real + in Zerto. The RPO en RTO are almost the same, butnif you realy want 'the …
We initially purchased RecoverPoint and after stumbling through the installation with the consultant and realizing how clumsy and nonautomated it was we began looking elsewhere. We really disliked the amount of setup and manual configuration needed to get basic things …
Zerto was far and away from a much better product than RecoverPoint. EMC was unable to perform near as fast and as good as Zerto and required a lot more setup and infrastructure to run.
Hands down Zerto blows VMWare SRM out of the water. The configuration is easy to setup. Managing replications are just a few short key strokes and there is an easy-to-navigate web dashboard.
Veeam is an impressive solution, however, Zerto has a better feature set, customizable journal, and RPO timing. The price with Zerto was more competitive.
We use VMware vSphere Replication as our disaster recovery tool for our Tier 2/3 systems. This was chosen as it saves us costs for our less critical, but still needed systems that keep our company running. Putting everything on Zerto would be great, but with this combination, …
Zerto replication is a lot cheaper than any of the completion, it’s simple to set up and use, requires minimal training for users, and its simple interface and groups using VPG enables a granular setup.
It just does what it says and is simple, reliable, and relatively cheap
Zerto solves issues with snapshot-based backups and provides continuous data protection up to 14 days with an astonishing granularity. Zerto's One-2-Many can provide local and offsite backups with near real-time and fast restore of a VM
While more expensive, Zerto does a better job of protecting our servers and keeping the RPO low. It was also supported by our financial core which was a huge factor in our adoption. However, one it was put into our system, we wanted to adopt it company wide. As long as you …
We looked at both CommVault and NetBackup, which are similar platforms to that of the Zerto Replication Software stack. We thought the Zerto solution best met our specification needs, as well as our cost needs. The CommVault licensing was complicated, and we just have had a bad …
We started out using Backup Exec which was in service until we virtualized our environment where it didn't perform as well at the time. Then we switched to Veeam which worked well, but then as we started needing to do migrations and off-site DR, we found ourselves relying on …
The speed of WAN replication is great. It is faster compared to RecoverPoint and 20 VMs replicating over a 20Mbps VPN, which has a RPO less than one minute. Of course, your mileage will vary.
We used to use Veeam for our replication solution but due to the snapshot issues that we used to experience with our larger virtual machines, i.e we would encounter some lost of connectivity. We were told by two of our partners that Zerto would solve our needs and we did our …
Zerto is easy to install and maintain. Most importantly, the replication feature with a journal that provides recovery point every few seconds cannot be found in any other software we evaluated.
Physical recoverpoint and virtual Recovperpoint for VMware are still very basic in their feature set. Physical recoverpoint requires months of planning, installation, configuration, before systems are replicated and then protected. There is no backup feature such as Zerto, …
Zerto replicates at the hypervisor level, not the VM level like VMware Site Recovery Manager (SRM). SRM replicates vms within or across vSphere clusters, but not between different hypervisors. While I only replicate from vcenter to vcenter, if we needed to replicate to a …
I believe it would work well with continuous replication in a DR scenario with no time limits and having the ability to fail back is a bonus, but in a one off move the decision to restrict the time it can sync for has proven to be an issue for us.
Zerto is well suited for disaster recovery and virtual machine replication between multiple data centers. DR testing for audit or regulations is much easier with Zerto, great reporting, dashboard etc. It is not well suited for physical server replication for disaster recovery or as a primary backup solution.
It is simple to set up and use. In my opinion, one of the most important functions of a tool is its interface. If you have the best product in the world but it takes an arm and a leg to configure and a doctorate degree to use, then the product isn't worth very much.
The continuous replication is done very well. The failover and failback process runs smoothly.
This has less to do with the product than the company, but Zerto as a company really listens to their customer base. We've always had a very good interpersonal experience with their support and sales teams. Having great people behind their product is definitely one of Zerto's strengths.
License management is poor and the online system is very restrictive, We are using a one time "Move" product that has a fixed life ... but sometimes in a small team other high priority tasks come along.
We lost all access to all licenses in the portal and all support because we hadn't used them in ninety days. Very poor service. We did get access back eventually but it took a lot of "bargaining".
Failover isn't always as smooth as it could be. VMDKs don't release properly and the move fails and has to be done manually. Not hard just frustrating. VMWare to VMWare.
We really like the easy setup of this replication solution, as well as the ease of management. Not to mention, our internal IT Economist determined that the Zerto solution would provide the best ROI out of the competing solutions we analyzed. So far, his calculations have been spot on, and we have saved substantially
Cabonite Availability is a very practical and useful tool that can help any business weather any type of IT disaster. The ease and quickness of restoring data helps us provide as seamless an experience as possible. Many times our customers will never know there was an outage. This brings confidence in our brand and improves our organization's standing and reputation.
Zerto is very easy to implement and support. Uses are broad, only issues are once something doesn't sync it is difficult to get assistance until your reach tier 2 or tier 3 support. Basic file and folder recovery is great. Live and test fail overs are also easy to implement without issue.
Once through to support it is very good and they have assisted us through a number of issues. I don't always think that they provide a solution, more a workaround, but in a move situation where each copy is moving once, that isn't an issue. I'd be more concerned if we were using it to manage a DR scenario.
Very responsive, very capable. Overall, the product is very easy to set up and configure. Problems usually encroach when lower-level components are updated for changed, for instance, vSphere. Support usually can help us work through any issues that pop up from upgrades to other software, but their own updates can lag behind a little.
Zerto is a very nice tool when performing virtual to virtual replication. If you were to add a physical server in the mix, it would not be able to handle that server or the data on it. Veeam is a way is similar to Zerto where it only has the ability to handle virtual to virtual replication. The big difference is that it's not continuous replication. It uses a snapshot technology to grab the changes from the last snapshot and replicate that over.
Zerto solves issues with snapshot-based backups and provides continuous data protection up to 14 days with an astonishing granularity. Zerto's One-2-Many can provide local and offsite backups with near real-time and fast restore of a VM
Zerto does not backup physical machines or VMs that are turned off, but there are other products to do that.
Other backup products are stepping up with ease of deployment and small organizations would find them a little easier to use as there are fewer configuration options.
