My main use case for HPE Zerto Software is BCDR. 

By implementing this solution, we were trying to solve BCDR challenges and needed a vendor-agnostic solution.

The feature I appreciate most about HPE Zerto Software is its journal-based replication, which is a faster replication technology than what we had prior.

Overall, it has improved our RTO and RPO and reduced the engineering time spent during regularly scheduled DR exercises.

When failing over virtual machines (VMs), where VLANs aren't spanned across geographical data centers, it's essential to change the IP address of replicated VMs. The mechanism used to control and configure this process could be improved for customers with restrictions on DHCP usage.

Additionally, there are nuances to consider when dealing with Linux systems.

I have been using HPE Zerto Software for three years.

HPE Zerto Software has had some issues, such as storage problems and logs filling up, but they were resolved by support.

Our replicated workloads are mostly static. We have not needed to scale our implementation, yet.

Their support team didn’t have all the answers, and some of the cases took far too long to address, especially on critical systems that needed to be operational before our scheduled DR events.

I would evaluate customer service and technical support of HPE Zerto Software as probably a five out of ten. 

Neutral

Before adopting HPE Zerto Software, we were using a vendor-specific technology. We considered the change to HPE Zerto Software due to performance and the need to use multiple hypervisors.

Deploying HPE Zerto Software was pretty streamlined, but there have been some challenges with the support organization. There were instances where additional resources were needed to address cases, and the time to bring them on was longer than expected.

We were able to consolidate tools with HPE Zerto. That yielded a meaningful amount of cost savings for us.

My experience with the pricing and licensing of HPE Zerto Software is that it was more affordable than our previously used technologies.

My advice to another organization considering HPE Zerto Software is to get a good contact within the account team to ensure a quick path to escalation exists. 

Potential customers should be aware that Zerto does not support all hypervisors in the market. So, depending on your footprint, Zerto may or may not be a fit for your long-term virtualization strategy.

I would rate HPE Zerto Software a seven out of ten.

My use cases with Zerto are primarily focused on backup and ransomware protection.

There has never been a situation where we've had to use Zerto for DR.

We have improved RPOs and RTOs. Immutability is a huge factor.

The near-synchronous replication is a great feature. It does work, and it's nice to have that. We're backing up all the time. 

We couldn’t see its benefits immediately. A lot of time had to pass, and honestly, we're still working on it.

There is one one-click remediation for ransomware.

We have had some technical difficulties getting a full restore at a file level. One of the problems we were having was to do a full VM recovery to get one file, because we were encountering errors within Zerto. I don't think we have that one fixed yet. However, we do see a huge improvement in our RTO with a full VM recovery.

Zerto is pretty robust. My input would be to have their sales engineers not overpromise and then have the product underdeliver because we were scoped not-appropriately sized target hardware. That hit us hard. We went with Exagrid as our target. Because of incorrect sizing, we didn't get the expected compression, and we ran out of space. We didn't have enough capacity for all of our backups the way we wanted them tiered. It crippled Zerto as well.

I still don't know how I feel about the purchase by HPE. Their support has been top-notch. They've been trying to work with us to get this fixed. However, I didn't like some of the proposals that they made. At one point, they proposed that we pull out Zerto and put in the HPE backup solution.

I have been using Zerto in my career for several years now, and it has played a crucial role in my work.

It's stable.

They're pretty responsive. The quality is there. It looks like we need to go back to the drawing board, which is very unfortunate. I would rate them a nine out of ten. Their support is very good.

Positive

We've used Veeam in conjunction with Dell's Data Domain. We also used the other VDI solution. They're a direct competitor of Veeam. 

I prefer Rubrik over Zerto because of scalability, but the drawback is the cost. Rubrik costs considerably more.

Initial deployment seemed easy. It was a little time-consuming and took a little bit of my sysadmin's time to create all the tiers and do all the configuration, but it was pretty easy. It was smooth.

After the deployment, it does require some maintenance. Because of all the problems that we've had, the maintenance has been fixing or trying to fix what wasn't correct with scoping. We keep running out of space, so our maintenance is that we go in and reconfigure our tiers, and we don't get a 100% backup.

It's fair. My biggest gripe with Zerto is the initial scoping. What we were promised didn't work with what we ended up with. At one point, our Exagrid representative told us that he doesn't know why they scoped it this way, but that's impossible. We can't do what we're expecting to do with just these two Exagrids.

I would rate Zerto a seven out of ten. Their product is solid, but the implementation left a sour taste in my mouth.

Our use cases right now are primarily for creating spot backup snapshots and things like that for recovery.

The near synchronous replication works very effectively. We do appreciate it as it's comparable to other vendors in that space.

Zerto has helped to reduce downtime in situations when we roll out a change and the change needs to be rolled back. Zerto has been excellent at being able to recover that prior server before the change, so it has helped significantly in those areas.

Zerto has helped us to reduce the overall DR testing. Zerto saved us close to 90% on DR testing compared to traditional backups and restores. We were able to utilize that time for anything else we wanted to. We needed the time desperately, so it was a big benefit to us.

Zerto has had an impact on our IT resiliency strategy. It has improved our IT resiliency considerably; going from traditional backups to having backups with Zerto in addition was a lifesaver.

We use Zerto to help protect virtual machines in our environment pretty much exclusively. Compared to what we were doing with traditional backups, our RTO and RPO have improved by 90%.

What I appreciate the most about the product is its simplicity. It's very easy to use for my staff.

Expanding the product to compete more fully with products such as Veeam would be a big benefit in the market.

I have been using Zerto for about three years.

We have not seen any instability.

Zerto's scalability is adequate for us. It could expand a bit more to compete with those larger products that are a little bit more scalable. We're not a big enough enterprise to test it. We haven't taken it to the point where we feel the scalability is a problem, but I suspect it probably would be; that's just a suspicion, not anything that I have concrete evidence for.

We have not had to contact the technical support or customer support.

Neutral

I have personally used alternatives to Zerto, including Veeam, Commvault, Veritas, and several other solutions. Zerto competes effectively in the snapshot area for DR and synchronous replication. I've also used the Pure Storage system, which does asynchronous replication. It combines effectively with other products such as Zerto, Veeam, and so on, so I've used quite a few of them in the past.

Veeam is a more comprehensive backup software for an enterprise. Zerto gets most of the way there and would work for a smaller enterprise effectively, but for a larger enterprise, Veeam has capabilities that are beyond Zerto at this point. Veeam is an example of a more complete product.

Commvault also has a more complete product, even though it's not entirely as good. Zerto is progressing; they have a great start and a great product, but they probably need to expand it to compete more fully with those larger enterprise backup systems.

Its deployment is easy. We had it fully onboard and tested in about two weeks.

After the deployment, Zerto doesn't require much maintenance at our end. You have to administer it similarly to any other system, but it's pretty low maintenance.

We put a team on it so that everybody learned together. We put a three-man team on it from a group of seniors who would be responsible for disaster recovery anyway.

It was pretty appropriate. It was not too cheap, not too expensive. It was just about right.

I would rate Zerto a seven out of ten.

I'm a payroll specialist using Zerto to deploy virtual machines, store data, and a little disaster recovery. 

I saw benefits within a few weeks of beginning to use Zerto. It helps us protect virtual machines in our environment and has improved our RPOs by about five to 15 seconds. It has also had a positive impact on our recovery times. Zerto also improves application availability as our business continues to increase our lifespan.

Zerto saves time and helps us reduce the risk of data loss from ransomware. it has also reduced our DR testing time, but I'm unsure how much. 

Zerto is an easy platform to use. It makes work easier and reduces stress.

Zerto could improve its pricing and customer care. I've never used customer care, but I talked to someone who had, and they weren't given the information they needed.

I've used Zerto for three years.

I experienced some lag twice.

Zerto's scalability is just okay. In my experience, the multi-host support and automated scaling can squeeze performance.

Zerto is expensive. It costs too much for the service they offer.

I rate Zerto seven out of 10.

We plan to use Zerto for migrating our external customers from their private data centers to our data center and Zerto's application services or other cloud services.

Zerto has improved our migration capabilities. Before Zerto, we used other applications, but they had some limitations in terms of platform compatibility. With Zerto, we have platform freedom and can migrate any customer to our data center.

The migration capabilities are very good. The platform flexibility allows us to migrate customer resources and virtual machines from any platform, like Hyper-V or VMware, and it's fast and reliable.

We're in the process of a proof of concept. It's been about three or four months.

The stability is strong and reliable. 

It's scalable.

We will provide support with the help of HPE or Arlanje. We are just preparing that model.

The customer service and support are very helpful. Whenever we ask something, they respond very fast and quick. Their technical knowledge is really good.

Positive

Zerto is faster and more reliable. In the POC process, we compared it with other technologies and brands, and Zerto is very nice.

We compared it to Veeam. 

We still use our previous solution. In fact, we are not replacing that solution. We are just enriching our replication products with Zerto.

Zerto is more user-friendly.

It was easy and fast. The point is, it's really easy.

We used a consultant. The experience was very nice. They were very helpful.

It's very new for us, so we don't have that information yet.

We evaluated Acronis, Veeam, and Commvault. We chose Zerto for two reasons. 

• First, our customers want it. They always ask if we do replications with Zerto. 
• Second, we compared it with other products. 

Zerto is user-friendly, fast, and reliable. We wanted to improve our replication cycle. 

It's also platform-free. I can migrate resources from my customers' on-premises data centers, public clouds, and other cloud service providers' data centers to my data center. That's the biggest advantage for us.

Up to now, I would give it an eight out of ten. It's platform-free, which is the most important thing for us. 

It's also easy to use, fast, reliable, and the replication process is really nice.

It's used for general replication services and recovery. We're actually looking at its more integral use in DR in a business continuity role.

It integrates well with our environment, is very adaptable to our changing requirements, and is fairly easy for our team to use.

Zerto's near-synchronous replication is very efficient, very powerful, and very productive for us. It has helped us organize our recovery process a lot more, so it's led to process improvements.

Zerto is preparing us to do disaster recovery in the cloud rather than in a physical data center. But we are not there yet. 

We use it to support disaster recovery on Microsoft, but we are also considering AWS.

We use Zerto to protect our VMs. We're still redefining our RPOs due to Zerto's performance. We're going back and replacing our baseline.

When it comes to speed of recovery, we believe Zerto is above the rest that we know of.

I just learned about Zerto's vault capability, which we're going to learn more about. That will be very valuable to us. We get almost real-time replication services.

Those features are so valuable because we're always prepared to restore if we need to.

The vault feature will be very valuable to us, so that's one feature we'd like to see implemented. 

We're always looking for additional features and value from Zerto. Immutable replication services is one. I heard the vault will be totally protected from any outside influences, so that's another thing we're looking forward to. 

We're always looking to integrate better with our environment.

I have been using Zerto for roughly six years.

So far, it has been stable. No issues.

We haven't tested scalability yet, but we are sure that scalability shouldn't be an issue. We'll find out.

Good. Excellent. Now that Zerto is part of HP, we get greater support from HP's executive team.

We used a variety of solutions in the past. Zerto does the job of two or three of those previous solutions, so we were able to consolidate.

Zerto's team helped a lot. It was fairly straightforward and painless.

We have not come up with the metrics to determine the ROI yet, but we're working on it.

The pricing, licensing, and setup costs are fair at best. It's not the cheapest, but it works for us.

We did evaluate other solutions. Cohesity, Commvault Cloud and Rubrik were the two others we considered.

We liked the resiliency, usability, and use cases of Zerto more.

Overall, I would rate it around a seven out of ten. Once we understand the scalability, it could reach eight.

It's easy to install. Make sure your business requirements align with Zerto's capabilities. Others should study some of the use cases first before making a decision.

We use Zerto for disaster recovery and backup of our application server.

Zerto's ease of use is moderate.

The near-synchronous replication is good.

We use Zerto to help protect our VMs.

Zerto improved our recovery point objective, but to achieve long-term data retention we had to invest in additional local storage.

From an IT resilience perspective, our UK-wide implementation ensured a swift recovery, solidifying the strategy's effectiveness.

It has enabled disaster recovery in the cloud. This is important from a software recovery perspective to keep things running.

The most valuable aspect of Zerto is the recovery speed.

The recovery processes of large datasets in the Cloud have room for improvement.

The backup functionality can be improved.

I have been using Zerto for five years.

Zerto is stable.

Zerto is scalable.

The technical support is good.

Positive

We used various solutions in the past including Veeam and Quest AppAssure.

We came to the end of what we could do with AppAssure so we moved on to Zerto.

The initial deployment was difficult. The deployment took a couple of weeks and required around four people.

While Zerto excels in disaster recovery, its backup capabilities fall short. To ensure proper data protection, we require a separate backup solution alongside Zerto for disaster recovery therefore the price for Zerto is high.

In our search for a cloud-based disaster recovery solution, we considered both Veeam Cloud Connect and Zerto, ultimately choosing the latter.

I would rate Zerto seven out of ten. It only works for virtual machines, not physical ones. This means we need separate software for physical machine backup, which adds complexity and cost.

Zerto's recovery speed falls in line with what we've experienced from other disaster recovery solutions.

Disaster recovery testing was prevented due to security restrictions. Our policies don't permit creating a sandbox environment that interacts with Zerto.

Four people are required for the maintenance of Zerto.

I recommend Zerto for disaster recovery purposes.

We use the solution for replicating VMs from our on-site VMWare sites to both Google Cloud and Azure clouds. This allows us to feel confident not only in our disaster recovery capabilities but also in testing applications from our on-site data center to isolated cloud instances where there won't be any IP address or domain name system conflicts.  

The continuous backup gives us a better point in time recovery. It also reduces the amount of bandwidth to move the Zerto VM data from site to site, and we like that.

Zerto has improved our organization in several ways, particularly in the realm of disaster recovery, data protection, and business continuity.  

With Zerto's near-zero recovery time, our critical applications and services can be quickly restored, minimizing the impact on business operations.  

The data replication ensures that there is a consistent and up-to-date copy of the information. This helps protect against data loss and ensures data integrity.  With Zerto's single pane of glass, it's easier for IT administrators to monitor and manage their disaster recovery and data protection strategies. This has led to more efficient operations and reduced administrative overhead.

Zerto supports multi-cloud environments, allowing our organization to replicate and protect our important data across different cloud providers and sites. This flexibility has benefited our businesses with our diverse cloud strategies and our on-site data centers in different locations.  

Zerto helped our organization meet compliance requirements by ensuring data protection and recovery strategies align with our regulatory standards. 

Additionally, Zerto has incorporated security features to safeguard the replicated data.

Zerto needs to improve its documentation. It seems like some documents are copied from other older documentation, with misleading screenshots or incorrect steps.  

This can be confusing when newly introduced to a product or in a crisis situation such as a disaster recovery test or a true disaster recovery. The documentation needs to be revised, reviewed, and registered to be correct. Perhaps Zerto should consider an outside consultant to review and approve any documentation that is released.

I've used the solution for about a year.

It's very stable, and we have had no issues.

it does scan well and does what it claims to do.

Support needs to be more flexible.

Neutral

We have only used vRealize.

The documentation was confusing and, at times, incorrect.

We handled the setup in-house.

I don't any ROI information.

I'd advise others to start small.

We also evaluated Veeam.

We use it for migrations and VM protection.

The near-synchronous replication is very good. It's very critical for us. For example, with SQL, we used to use Always On to protect databases at the database level, to give us high availability and DR. But now, in Azure, we don't do that. If we wanted to do that, we would have to have a SQL Server on the protected site and another up and running on the DR site and those machines would always have to be up and running. To save on costs, instead of using Always On, we're now protecting the VM as a whole, thanks to Zerto.

It's also the main tool that we use for our annual DR tests for all of our production applications. Once a year, for one week only, we do a failover of those critical production applications from the primary site to the DR site and we let them run there for that week. Zerto does the failover and the DR site becomes the active site while everything replicates to the former primary site. Once the week is over, we do a failback and Zerto is the main tool that we use for that, and we repeat the whole process. We're then good for the whole year. Zerto is protecting those VMs.

Another advantage is that Zerto has decreased downtime for us. It could have been a situation where we were down for weeks because of something that Azure did on their end. Even though Zerto has a partnership with Microsoft Azure, sometimes Azure makes changes that are disruptive. There was one change that affected our ability to replicate our critical workloads and it was a rough one. For that week, Zerto found a workaround because they were not getting any progress on resolving the situation from the Azure team. Zerto applied the workaround in their code and we were good, but that was a rough situation. Zerto goes out of its way to help its customers. We've had issues but Zerto has been very responsive.

The quickness and efficiency of creating snapshots, on a real-time basis, is one of the most valuable features. Whenever changes are made on a server, Zerto starts taking snapshots right away and replicating them to the DR site. It's very effective and very quick. Our SLAs are 24 hours, but Zerto could do what we needed, on-prem, in seconds, and in the cloud, in minutes. Zerto is way ahead of what our SLAs are.

Sometimes we do failover tests to make sure that we will potentially have a successful failover or migration. It's very flexible and does its job very well. And one of the things I love about the product is that whenever you do a failover, it gives you the ability to either commit or roll back. Some of Zerto's competitors don't have that ability, at least in Azure. That's critical for us because after we have DR tests on a weekend, we have users sign off on their applications that everything is fine. If something isn't right, we can always roll back to how everything was right before we started the DR test. And if everything is working great, then we commit.

Since we are primarily in the cloud now, Zerto definitely needs to update its platform. When we were decommissioning one of our on-prem data centers and going to Azure, there were issues. And with Azure, it's still limited in the way we can manage our resources there. Zerto hasn't quite kept up to date with how certain elements run within Azure.

In Azure, there is something called resource groups. You cannot create a resource without a resource group. You can apply tags to resource groups and that tagging information is very critical to our company because we now have 95 percent of our production environment workloads running in the cloud. We have to make sure that every resource group is tagged correctly, with the correct team and department because we have to bill them at the end of the month. The problem is that Zerto does not have that ability. When the product fails over or migrates a VM from on-prem, or even within Azure, to another site, it does not give you the option of selecting an existing resource group.

When it fails over, it uses the name of the group that you created within Zerto. The VM is failed over with no problem in a reasonable amount of time. But the problem then becomes that the resources are part of a resource group that has no tags. It does not follow our naming commission for resource groups and then we're stuck. It's not as easy just renaming the resource groups.

These components are very critical for us but they are missing in Zerto. They're aware of it because we've had feature-request meetings with our Zerto account team. They're working on it for the next release and have mentioned that they are going to be making improvements to the product. But for now, it's lacking.

Also, a downside with Zerto is that there is a lot of management overhead when running it in the cloud. On-prem, we used to have one Zerto management appliance, but in the cloud, we have about 20 to manage to protect our VMs. Zerto has mentioned to me that, for the next release, they're building it from the ground up and it will be much better in the cloud, with more cloud focus.

Because of the experience that I had with Zerto running on-prem, where we only had one appliance in each of our data centers, I deployed one in Azure as well. Little did I know that there were limitations and that more appliances had to be deployed because of all the replication of the traffic and the number of VMs that we were trying to replicate. But Zerto stepped in and helped when it came to that.

I have been using Zerto for four years.

The stability is an eight out of 10.

The scalability is also an eight out of 10.

They're very helpful. They always want to understand your situation and, even if they're not sure, they do their best to help and fix the problem. 

For on-prem, there were always references, but for the cloud there is a bit of a knowledge gap. I would always get workarounds, fixes, or KB articles for on-prem, but the cloud implementation is where the documentation is lacking. But the team does its best. It depends on who you get. Some know Azure, or cloud, and some still lack that knowledge. But if they don't know, they get the right person on the call.

Positive

We were a VMware shop on-prem and we were migrating to the cloud from on-prem VMware to Azure, so the tool that we were using to protect VMs through DR would no longer work. We used VMware SRM (Site Recovery Manager) for years when we used to be solely on-prem. 

We started looking for a product to help and, at the time, Zerto was the one that stood out among the competitors, and it was a solid product, so we started using it. Zerto is definitely a more effective product. It is a lot quicker when bringing our VMs up on the DR side, and even when we do a fallback. And Zerto is a lot easier to use than VMware.

The initial setup was not straightforward.

And maintenance is required for upgrades when there are newer releases, especially when it comes to Azure. There are newer releases that contain fixes and improvements and we do update the version of the Zerto appliance. They are running on Windows Servers, so we also have to patch the operating system. In Azure, there are a lot of SKUs with different pricing. Depending on the utilization of a VM, we sometimes make changes to the family types to save on costs at the VM level.

I did it with our Zerto account team, which included our sales engineer. Just the two of us were involved.

Zerto saves us a lot of time. One team member alone can handle the DR test using Zerto, whereas before, when we used SRM, at least two or three people were involved from the VM perspective and from storage. VMware was integrated with our NetApp environment and that meant at least two or three team members were involved. But with Zerto, just one person uses the product for a DR test.

We looked at Azure Site Recovery. We were close to going with it. It did have the ability to do resource group selection, but there were two showstoppers at the time that prevented us from going forward with it.

When we were looking at Azure Site Recovery, it seemed that it had a better cost per VM, but Zerto was not that far off. And we were more comfortable using Zerto to protect our VMs than the other products we were testing.

My advice is that if you're in the cloud, you really should test the failover of your VMs. If tagging is not a key component, you'll be fine. But if it is, that is a huge problem. And expect a lot more management overhead when it comes to managing Zerto in the cloud.

In terms of our RPOs, Zerto is consistent. From time to time, it may run past our SLAs, but that's because there are network or VM issues. And that happens very rarely. It almost always meets our RPOs.

The ease of moving data varies on the size. A good thing about Zerto is that it does give you a little chart indicating the step that it's at in the replication process.  But even if it's a small VM, it does take some time, including setting it all up and starting the synchronization. It's not instant.

We use Zerto for disaster recovery, backup, and ransomware protection. The 3-2-1 backup strategy requires us to have two backups of our production data on different media. One copy is on disk and tape backup, and the other is hosted off-site for disaster recovery. With journaling and the persistent backups we take nightly, it almost obviates 3-2-1 because it renders some unnecessary aspects. 

We adopted Zerto, hoping to speed up our recovery time and improve the overall security of our environment and data. We haven't realized the full benefits, but I expect we will improve our security posture and disaster recovery speed.  

Zerto would enable us to do cloud-based DR instead of a physical data center, but we are based in a very rural area of Colorado. We're deep in the mountains, so leveraging the cloud is challenging. We have little-to-no cloud presence, but Zerto can enable us to move our disaster recovery into the cloud because it is agnostic to the backup target. That could easily be a cloud provider. We only need redundant and reliable circuits to the cloud.

The impact on our RTO is theoretical because we haven't had to do any critical recovery. Based on our testing, it should significantly improve our RTO because the backup technology is more efficient than our previous solution. RTO is one of Zerto's strengths. Zerto enabled us to test our DR plan. Our disaster recovery needed a lot of help when I joined two years ago, and it's one of the projects I have been working on. Zerto is central to our DR plan. It's the primary cog in that machine. Zerto cut our hardware and maintenance costs by about 50 percent.

I like the fact that Zerto is target agnostic. It doesn't care what type of storage it writes to. The journaling is also excellent. You can easily and quickly restore to seconds before an event. The immutable data copies feature is one reason we adopted Zerto. That's one of its selling points.

Zerto is easy enough to use. It's as usable as any other backup solution. We're accustomed to dealing with complex options and everything available to us in the suite. 

I tried a file-level recovery, which should work on any server. However, the server we need to protect the most is the one giving us problems. We couldn't do a file recovery without restoring the entire server to a recovery partition that isn't part of the production and pulling the files off it that way.

Zerto's near-synchronous replication is excellent when it works. I'm trying to be nice to them because I like the product a lot, but we're having a lot of difficulty with it in our environment.

There is a disconnect between the sales pitch and what we can do with Zerto in practice. We've been trying to reconcile that for most of the year. There should be more continuity between sales and implementation to ensure the solution is implemented how our presales engineer pitched it to us. 

They need to have some accountability. Maybe the implementation engineer should be on the line so that they know what is presented and agreed upon regarding the implementation in our environment. The implementation should have been precisely what we were expecting. 

I was part of the pre-purchase team as the information security manager. I handed it off to my infrastructure team to implement, and they practically had to start from scratch. Zerto handed it off to their professional services to implement, and I assigned the job to my team. 

There were a lot of questions and things Zerto couldn't do on its end. HP purchased Zerto as we were engaging with them. I don't know if that was related to our frustrations, but I know that acquisitions can make a product messy for a bit. I don't want to blast Zerto. It's an excellent product, and I would love it if it could work as advertised. I've seen it do some of that for us. We've had a rough start, and we're still trying to find that sweet spot.

I have used Zerto for nearly a year.

Zerto isn't reliable in our current environment. We keep running into these weird little issues. At one point, we didn't have complete backups on a couple of key servers for more than a week because of this issue. If we had gone down that week, it would have been ugly.

Zerto seems pretty scalable. We bought something that we can add on to and increase the horsepower. Every change we've made has been smooth.

Their support and account management teams have been pretty amazing. They are bending over backward to make it right with us, so they deserve a lot of credit for that.

We used Avamar. Zerto's recovery is faster, and it's a little more straightforward. Zerto is an improvement in RPO, RTO, ransomware protection, immutability, and cost. Avamar costs nearly 75 percent more. There's no significant difference in ease of use. 

I wasn't involved in the initial setup. After the deployment, there is a lot of maintenance. It throws out lots of errors, and we sometimes need to rebuild some of its components. Our backup guy is a little frustrated at times. 

We haven't seen a return aside from saving money on the annual license because we've had to invest so much time into getting it to work.

Zerto's price seems fair. It's competitive. 

Dell Avamar for Data Domain offers functionality similar to Zerto, but we weren't taking advantage of it. We also looked at Rubrik, but it's a cloud-based solution, and it's a little costly. We're not in a position to leverage cloud solutions at this time. Avamar costs too much to get the same features. Doing a rip and replace was more economical than keeping the hardware in place and adding the functionality.

I rate Zerto a six out of ten. I only give it a low rating because of the issues we've faced lately in our environment. If we didn't have those issues, I'd probably give it an eight.

If you plan to implement Zerto, I suggest double-checking everything. Confirm the configurations and ensure your backup targets are sufficiently sized. You must know what you want from the product, and that requires guidance from the sales engineer. Make sure the plan is solidified and you have a document that spells the whole thing out.