The bakcup HYCU solution has a licensing limitation that is local only. While Bácula is multicloud, meaning that the bakcup solution can perform recovery for physical, local, virtual, containerized and cloud environments, which makes it a very pleasant differentiator. As a data …
NetBackup had some malfunctions when the operating system where the solution was installed was restarted, often the services did not start automatically, restoring files from within a VM backup was not supported
Verified User
Team Lead
Chose Bacula Enterprise
Both tools are of great quality, however the investment in Bacula Enterprise is much lower, due to not having to license each backup client. In addition, it is clear to be multi-environment, and can be used in different systems and scenarios through its plugins. These can even …
During the choice, Bacula Enterprise proved to be more versatile and affordable, the diversity of plugins was also important for the decision, it was one of the only solutions that work with tape, the possibility of sizing the server according to the need and freedom of Choice …
The determining factor was the migration of old backup data from the Community version to a new backup platform. We didn't have the initial resources to restore all the backup data, install the new solution on existing hardware, and then back up again. This would directly …
Bacula cost-benefit ratio is better than all the others, as in addition to having many more integrations with operating systems and hypervisors, it is not necessary to purchase more licenses for backups such as NAS, File to Tape, Cloud, etc.
The way of hiring Bacula is simpler than the other market options. There is no limitation by amount of data or the like, and there are several plugins that increase the possibilities of the tool.
Bacula Enterprise supports more systems and is free software.has plugin for postgres, oracle, windows and all linuxwhile HYCU only supports NUTANIX and backs up the entire VM, not very good compression software.HYCU has a closed architecture, I can't complain about the graphics …
Bacula Enterprise was selected by us in comparison to other software, due to its high performance, data reliability and mainly cost-benefit, a software of great scalability and performance for a low cost, it represents for the company a greater profit and a security of data …
Data Protector was a confusing tool for configuration. There wasn't much research source for doubts. The tool was not intuitive. Problems understanding the initial configuration of the tool made maintenance difficult. Bacula Enterprise is totally different, as it has an …
We are a data recovery company and we use to receive backup media from several backup systems from the market when the original software can't restore them after data storage accidents or for some other different reasons. Bacula Enterprise is the only software that we never had …
The guarantee of restoration and security of the company's data, and the possibility of data backup with greater capacity at a lower cost, both in the acquisition of the license and in the annual payments for the guarantee of support and updates is why Bacula Enterprise stacks …
Micro Focus Data Protector has a poor support service and there is no active community, the user interface is not intuitive and the cost-benefit ratio of the solution is much lower than that of the Bacula system backup solution, in my opinion.
Verified User
Technician
Chose Bacula Enterprise
Já usávamos o Bacula Community e decidimos contratar o Bacula Enterprise pois os backups já estavam em um padrão aberto sendo de fácil migração.Outros aspectos nos levaram a contratação:Suporte em caso de algum desastre;Possibilidade de contratação de plugins a aplicações como …
The possibility of increasing the amount of data to be saved without having to pay more for the license was one of the things that led us to choose Bacula, but when effectively testing the tool, it became clear that in addition to the financial benefit, we would also have a …
Bacula Enterprise has a much more intuitive interface, better performance, and more data backup capacity at a lower price.
Verified User
Analyst
Chose Bacula Enterprise
Although it is a well-known and robust solution, it didn't work for us. Bad console, the bad solution to manage, few integrations, very expensive, poor support, that is, it was not difficult to decide on the exchange. In addition to the bad experience to make a DR of the …
Cost: Bacula wins hands down on cost. Deduplication: CommVault is, as they put it, hardware-agnostic when it comes to deduplication, and is really fast. Bacula does deduplication too, but not nearly as well. CommVault's deduplication remains deduplicated across all media. Not so …
Veeam Backup & Replication is easy to use and powerful, but I really didn't like that it's closed-source (Bacula Enterprise is open source--you pay for support), so I have no way of looking into what it's doing. Veeam only runs on Windows, and is more focused on VMs; our …
Unlike other backup and restore tool options, Bacula Enterprise offers much more functionality, in addition to a centralized management platform. For large corporations that have more than one virtualization host, it is essential to have a robust tool that has no limitations. …
Features
Bacula Enterprise
Data Center Backup
Comparison of Data Center Backup features of Product A and Product B
Well suited: - I use it for on premise and cloud backup and recovery and it is excellent for this job. - I also experiment with different hypervisors and till now Bacula seems to work with all of them - Security is really important for me as I had many bad experiences in the past and Bacula solution makes me totally confident. Less appropriate - You need to be experienced Linux user, I had to learn few more things in system to make the best use of it. - It's definitely designed for scalability and bigger companies than mine
The configuration can be hard to get started with. It took some time and reading of the documentation to understand how to get Bacula Enterprise to do what we wanted. This can be a hurdle when initially getting started.
Although the documentation is good, there's a lot of it and it isn't always structured in the best way. When you know what you're looking for it's fine, but when getting started it can be overwhelming.
Bweb is an optional extra, so without it, you're stuck with text files and command-line tools. This could likely be a turn off for sysadmins who prefer to work in a graphical environment.
It could do more to support hardware-based LTO encryption. With some web searching it's not too hard to figure out the changes needed to load encryption keys into the drives, but it'd be nice if Bacula Enterprise handled this by itself given it's a fairly fundamental part of tape backup.
Scripting actions using bconsole is ugly. More could be done to making scripting easier.
Easy to use, proactive and effective customer support, and simple deployment method. The high configurability is what makes this tool so effective for my organization - at no point do I have any issues of trust as to the restorability of a fileset. The GUI provided gives clear actionable reports as to the effectivity of the jobs performed.
This is a hard question. Usability for whom? For someone who is very comfortable at the command line and willing to put in the time to learn Bacula Enterprise's configuration syntax, it's very usable. Just don't expect to be an expert immediately.
Operation in the Bacula system has a light and fast interface and reports are generated almost instantly. Perhaps if Bacula is integrated with other solutions it may lose some performance
We have always been very well served by Bacula Enterprise support. The response time is excellent, and any doubts or problems are resolved quickly and easily, avoiding complications and the evolution of problems that could arise. Only praise for Bacula Enterprise's service and support. The monitoring of the entire process from acquisition to implementation was very well done.
I used CTERA almost from the time they started up. In short, it was very easy to use but configuration was limited; and in the end the agents were troublesome and I could not restore files. They had one person on staff who was terrific with tech support, when he left support became difficult and I lost confidence. Acronis was my first experience with a bare-metal recovery operation and it was terrific. Really saved the day. I would still be using it except the licensing was difficult and expensive and the software wasn't Linux friendly.
Our Disaster Recovery policy in regards to backups and archiving is made possible because of our use of Bacula Enterprise.
TCO is very low as the yearly subscription is very competitively priced. Management of the software is very low so we don't have to spend hours maintaining our backups.