Cloudcasa vs. Zerto on IBM Cloud

If the environment is fully IBM cloud-based with simple infra components like the SQL servers, standard VMs or applications with short recovery time objectives. This cost-effective solution can save in implementing rather than an expensive DR mechanism or tool to support the overall recovery strategy. If you have complex environments where mission-critical apps like Oracle Databases are running in a cluster mode and features like data guard is used this option would not be a good choice due to complexity.

Incentivized

• Ease of setup and upgrade. Installation and configuration was a breeze and can get you protected in just minutes without having to set up additional hardware.
• Consolidated billing of the IBM infrastructure and Zerto licensing. One bill to pay monthly.
• Ease of support access. Contacting IBM Cloud support is quick and easy and they can quickly involve Zerto support if needed.

Incentivized

• Enable the ability to use IBM Cloud Object Storage as a target for Zerto's long-term retention feature.
• Easier access to the underlying VMware infrastructure would be nice. Right now we have to connect to IBM's VPN and use other tools to do some infrastructure management tasks.
• More insight into the IBM-side VMware environment that we replicate to (i.e. ability to see available IPs, etc). Most of that is managed by IBM.

Incentivized

We had prior experience with Zerto and we were very happy with how it worked. Rubrik is also a very good product, but we wanted to go with the solution we were most familiar with. Zerto combined with IBM Cloud is a reliable combo that we feel works together well in addressing what we are trying to accomplish.

Incentivized

• Overall, it's a very effective solution both from a cost and operational standpoint. We now do DR tests once a quarter rather than once every 6 months.

Incentivized