I use it for yearly disaster recovery testing.

The main benefit we see from Zerto is that it helps to meet our disaster recovery objectives.

Zerto's near-synchronous replication is important and impressive.

Zerto helps protect VMs in our environment and has improved all over RPO.

The speed of recovery with Zerto is extremely fast. We're able to perform disaster recovery testing on dozens of VMs within an hour or even half an hour.

I like its fast recovery, fast RPO and RTO, ease of use, easy interface, ease of deployment, and that it's always available.

I would like for Zerto to improve reporting, provide more data on individual VMs and their performance, and maybe expand into backup with the ability to scan for malware or offline scanning.

I have been using Zerto for over seven years.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

The customer service and support are excellent.

We previously used Commvault. It used a lot of scripting and configuration to make disaster recovery happen, and it was slow, with a low RPO.

We haven't tried disaster recovery in the cloud rather than in a physical data center. We only use on-premises recovery.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing was straightforward.

We previously used or evaluated other backup and disaster recovery solutions.

We compared Veeam and Commvault against Zerto.

We chose Zerto because of its performance and ease of use.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten because there's always room for improvement.

We're using Zerto to move services between our on-premises data centers and Azure environment.

Zerto has really helped us streamline migrations to new hardware or other data centers.

We use the solution to move servers and VMs between data centers. Thankfully, we don't have to use it a lot for DR.

I love Zerto's near-synchronous replication. It's better than other applications that we tried. This near-synchronous replication is super important to our organization because we don't want to lose any data.

We're now trying to do disaster recovery (DR) in the cloud with Zerto. We haven't had any real use cases, but we're piloting it. It's pretty important to our organization to have DR in the cloud because we're in a very rural area where we don't have a lot of redundancy. So, it's important to have the scalability of Azure where we don't have it.

We use Zerto to help protect VMs in our environment, which is our primary use case. Our RPOs are pretty short. We can roll over a data center in 30 to 60 minutes if we have to. It's pretty quick, and we could turn everything around.

We looked at VMware's SRM but decided not to go with it.

We chose to use Zerto because the RTOs and RPOs were a lot faster with it.

Compared to other solutions, Zerto is really easy to use, and its interface is really nice. It's really easy to set up the replication groups in Zerto.

We're struggling a little bit now with the appliance migration with version ten.

Zerto could make some small improvements with some of the newer features. You can back up VMs but can't back up individual objects, like email objects, which could be improved.

I have been using Zerto for about seven years.

The solution's stability is very good. We haven't had any stability issues with Zerto.

Zerto can go bigger than our environment, so I think it has good enough scalability.

The solution's technical support is pretty good. Since we haven't had a lot of issues with the tool, we don't really use the support much. The cases we've opened have been resolved quickly by the support team. The support team seems knowledgeable and quick.

I rate the solution's technical support an eight or nine out of ten.

We have Zerto deployed in our on-premises data centers and for Azure VMware and Azure native so that we can switch between them. The solution's deployment is really easy. You just deploy the main tool and then tie it into your virtual environments.

Zerto's pricing was not that bad. I think it's gone up since we went live and added the cloud options now that we are an enterprise. The solution is expensive, but it's worth the price.

We use both public and private clouds to deploy the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

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 the solution for a couple of functions. One is cyber recovery, and the other is backing up all our infrastructure with the server.

The most valuable feature is the recovery. For example, in our financial operations, we eliminated two other vendors and reduced our costs.

Having DR in the cloud is crucial for us. We use it as a third copy to ensure stability and protection against cyber-attacks, giving us a clean copy in the cloud. This helps protect our VMs, and our RPOs are close to zero.

The recovery speed is much faster and less complicated than it was.

The knowledge base could be improved. Sometimes, it's finicky, especially when moving storage around. We've had to redo entire processes, which was time-consuming and resulted in data loss. This has happened multiple times, and despite following support steps and contacting support, we often had to resolve issues on our own.

I have been working with the product for a year.

The solution can scale well if you have the needed storage.

We received conflicting answers and resolutions to the same question depending on who we spoke to. Despite this, Zerto is stable. One of the key challenges we faced was during infrastructure moves, such as moving data or personnel. In these cases, we often had to rebuild our VPGs.

We used Site Recovery Manager for VM replication and Veeam for backups. Zerto outperformed these products.

Deploying the solution involved a learning curve. The knowledge base had conflicting data compared to other vendors.

HPE helped us with the deployment. Our overall experience with them was good. They answered our questions during virtual sessions. However, we encountered some customer service issues, as the resolution could vary depending on who we spoke to.

We have seen ROI by eliminating vendors and thereby saving costs.

Zerto's pricing is comparable. Each product has its ups and downs.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten.

One of our biggest use cases has been migrations. We migrated the virtual machines in one of our data centers using Zerto.

We're in the middle of a migration that Zerto has made much easier. We also use it for many standard disaster recovery cases. It constantly keeps our services running.

Zerto's near-synchronous replication is a key component. It's essential.

Zerto enables disaster recovery in the cloud, which is very important. It creates another level of protection to have an alternate location outside of on-premises.

It helps protect VMs in our environment. It's certainly better than a traditional nightly backup.

I've found the migration feature very valuable. It starts like a disaster recovery scenario where you're just replicating the VMs. Then it all gets synced up, and you decide when to make the cutover.

This is instead of having to do a more traditional conversion of the VMs or shutting them down and migrating the data, which is less efficient.

The seamlessness of a cutover is very helpful.

I have been using Zerto for around five years.

It offers good stability.

We haven't scaled it too much, but in our experience, we haven't had any issues with it.

We still use a different disaster recovery solution but for different use cases.

Zerto didn't completely replace our other backup solutions.

There are cost savings for the migration in particular.

From the migration standpoint, they're flexible with the licensing. You own the license and can apply it to a machine and then pull it back, apply it to another machine, and so on.

For the migration piece, we evaluated different solutions but not for the disaster recovery replication. We knew from the migration piece that it would work well.

For me, it's a ten. I haven't had any issues with it so far.

A lot of use cases involve how we effectively manage our DR and make sure there's not a lot of manual effort. On the business side, we proved the solution worked and showed the analytics on the DR report afterward. Those are the requirements.

At one of the banks I worked for, we used it for our merger and acquisition to replicate a legacy application that was no longer supported. Rather than try to rebuild it, which would have taken days or weeks, we could use Zerto to replicate it to our data center and join it to our domain. That was one of the biggest use cases we have had.

Another use case is for disaster recovery as a service (DRaaS) and to migrate service to a public cloud.

Zerto's near-synchronous replication is great. Not a lot of solutions can do that, and most organizations don't know that Zerto can do it. Once you have that near-sync capability, you can see how much more you can recover and be more resilient.

At the end of the day, we're trying to protect our data and not put the company at risk, whether it's from a cyber attack or just any sort of DLP data loss.

In financial services, data is paramount: protecting it, making sure you don't lose it, and integrating it. Having that near-sync ability is useful to any organization.

Zerto helps protect VMs in our environment. It really increased how many points in time we can recover, and not only the time to do it but where we want to do it too.

Generally, we choose a point in time because they're simulated tests and controlled. In the event of a true disaster, I'm sure I'd utilize one of the closer points to have more recent data, but it's good to have that option. Luckily, I haven't had to use that option.

It's night and day. With other solutions, you're locked into specific RPOs and RTOs based on how that solution works. Zerto gives us the flexibility to choose which we want to use and recover effectively.

The main valuable features are the fast RPO and RTOs we could achieve and the analytics behind that.

In my role these days, I have to make sure I can prove to the executive team as well as the business lines why we chose this solution and how it can help us.

One of the projects we're working on is DRaaS service. Once that's implemented, we'll test that solution. The whole premise of using Zerto is to replicate one-to-many and then test that scenario.

Zerto should continue adding new features. When I used it at the other bank, it wasn't good with replicating VDIs and automation. They've made a little more advancements in automation and scripting since then.

At one point, it was custom, requiring professional services. Now, Zerto has more built into its engine that will help with the failover of virtual desktops.

I was an early adopter. I worked for a managed service provider in New York City back in 2009 and was introduced to Zerto near the end of 2010, early 2011. That's when we started implementing it for our clients. I've been bringing Zerto wherever I go ever since.

Stability is great. Sometimes you have network blips, and you can be out of sync, but it'll catch up eventually. There are very minor issues, if any.

It is very scalable. For example, there's a tertiary site that we're building for the DRaaS service.

We just go to initiate the one-to-many and replicate up there. It's easy.

The customer service and support are responsive initially, and then they help you solve your problem. There was only one time with the custom scripting for the VDI that they wouldn't help because it was custom, and they wanted more money for that. They incorporated that into their solution a few years later.

In the past, I have used a different solution. I've worked with SRM, Double-Take (which is terrible), and BMC Recovery Point. Ever since I got hooked on Zerto around 2011, it's been pretty much Zerto.

The installation itself is very easy. Any problems I've run into, either when I was managing it or doing the installation myself, support has helped every step of the way and has been very easy to work with.

It's on Expedient's cloud, which might be AWS. I'm not sure. I just know we're doing it through a third party.

A lot of the ROI is with engineering hours. If it took eight hours of overtime to pay one or two engineers to do a DR test, now we can do it in one hour.

We can factor in how many DR tests you do and calculate the cost savings. That alone is a good ROI.

The pricing is pretty fair. It increases with the number of VMs you have. When we had about 600 VMs at my last bank, we did an enterprise licensing agreement that helped cut down the cost. It required signing on long-term, but it was the most effective.

I would rate it a ten out of ten. I've used this solution for so long and have seen it mature. It's just easy. In IT, especially in a managerial role, we want things to work. We don't want it to be complex. If it serves the business goals of data resiliency, then that's all I need.

Definitely do a proof of concept (POC) and make sure it fits your use cases. On paper, it will, but every company is different. Sometimes, for some reason, it won't work. Or not that it won't work, it just doesn't fit what the business is trying to achieve. So do the POC and see for yourself if it works.

We've used Zerto for file recovery and entire VM recovery.

Having a fast recovery time for both of our use cases is invaluable to the business.

The ability to form our backups automatically during the day has saved us, more than a few times.

My impression of Zerto’s near-synchronous replication is very positive. It gets the job done.

Near-synchronous replication is very important for our organization who use a lot of different versions of files across environments and database changes. It's what we do every day and having the functionality of near-instant recovery on entire virtual machines and files is a blessing.

We use Zerto to protect our VMs in our environment. We do daily backups with a different backup management software and having the ability to recover data in under ten seconds has been helpful.

Speed of recovery has been very effective in getting our information back as fast as we're able to get it. The daily backup solution that we use alternatively only allows a single backup versus having continuous backup replication with Zerto, it's a no-brainer.

I would like to have more granular notifications for jobs and workloads within the applying case application.

We have been using Zerto for around sixteen months.

It's pretty stable. The company itself has been around long enough to know they're not going anywhere. The number of clients that use them on a day-to-day basis speaks for itself.

For our environment, scalability does a great job with how it is. It can handle scaling.

Zerto technical support is some of the best around. I know when I reach out to them over the phone or via email, they are there quickly and offer great support.

I would rate them a ten out of ten. Every time I have to call them, they get something ready, very fast, and our issues are resolved quickly.

We still use Veeam.

We chose Zerto because when we started our path with GreenLake, we began looking into other backup utilities and Zerto was highly recommended. After we saw a product demo, we were sold. The demo sold itself very well.

Once the VPG is configured, the automation for backups happens on its own. There's nothing else to do. You can monitor but until you need to recover the files, there's nothing else to do. Zerto is very simple. We enjoy using the product.

The main difference between Veeam and Zerto is that with Zerto, we can get our near-instant recovery window to pull entire virtual machines back from the brink of failure. We might be able to implement more recovery windows for Veeam but from a data storage perspective, Zerto does a great job with deduplication.

We had a third party enable our Zerto configurations. They did a great job. The same VPGs are still running today.

We used an integrator for the setup. We had a good setup. They walked us through any issues we had after the setup.

I would rate Zerto a nine out of ten. There is a network issue that my team is still trying to figure out. Once we take care of it, it'll be a perfect ten.

Zerto should be our primary backup solution but until we can get the network issue resolved, it is relegated as a secondary source. It still does its job. We've used it multiple times for specific cases, and it's always passed with flying colors.

We use it primarily for DR situations. Whenever we lose our primary location, we switch to another location. We also backup resources and migrating VMs in and out of different environments, cloud versus on-prem.

The most valuable feature is that it provides real-time backup. We're in the financial industry and have to have 100 percent uptime.

It helps us have a lot better uptime than what we would normally have. It's always real-time synced, with instant recovery. We can return to another location if power drops or generators don't work.

It gives us quick uptime. It also helps our customers maintain that trust, so Zerto really does help with trust. We generally use it on-premise.

The near-synchronous replication is really good. It gives us quick uptime. It helps our customers keep that trust in us.

We use Zerto to protect VMs in our environment. Until Zerto, I didn't pay much attention to RPOs. Zerto gives the ability to bring RPOs down to seconds.

For certain use cases, Zerto has a better speed of recovery compared to other solutions but it doesn't tie into our SANs like Veeam does.

It is a little expensive.

We could streamline the installation better. The other thing would be ransomware notifications, like IO anomaly notifications. If they integrate with the SAN, that would be valuable to see in terms of snapshots.

I have been using Zerto for six to seven years.

We came up with the new version, and it's pretty good. If there's no reason for me to say it's unstable. It's been proven so far.

If you buy the licensing, it will scale up to size until you will spend money on it.

Support is helpful.

If you want to pull from the snapshot instead of tools, then SRMs are better used for this case. It's fast and the first to market with continuous data protection.

Zerto is easier to use. There is some standup at the beginning, you must install the agents. It's easy to use when it's working right, but sometimes, it takes great effort to get it going if something goes down.

We use another solution, Veeam. We keep them both because they're both beneficial for different use cases.

The initial setup is straightforward, but if you have it the first time, you are stranded in the industry. It could take a little figuring out, but Zerto is pretty helpful.

There have been a couple of situations which they weren't able to fix an issue right away. We move everything off to a different server until we can circle around and extend that one.

We did it in-house.

Zerto has paid for itself in man-hours saved.

Zerto gives you the ability to bring RPOs in seconds. We can have instant uptime for everything.

It's more expensive than other solutions but it's worth it for our environment. It has made it very easy to restore files because you can restore them down to the second. It's pretty simple. We have the agent and all the hosts.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We provide disaster recovery with Zerto in two scenarios. One is for our customers using on-premises deployments, and the other is for using the multi-tenant cloud. They're buying the cloud as a service, and we're also protecting that with it.

Zerto is primarily well-recognized as a leader in disaster recovery. It makes it easy for us to talk to our clients about the solution we provide them. Since it is Zerto-powered, we don't have to answer many questions about how it works, its reliability, or its capabilities. Thus, having name recognition, a positive company reputation, and technology benefits us.

The platform's ease of deployment and the ability to isolate failovers are key features for our customers who want to perform testing without interrupting their production environments. Those are the two primary use cases.

Our operational teams have discussed the ability to integrate multiple Zerto cloud platforms more seamlessly. For example, we have acquired 22 companies over the last seven years. Some already had it deployed, and integrating those existing deployments into our primary deployment is more challenging than it could be. We have provided our feedback to them.

Thryv has been using Zerto for about twelve years now.

As a product manager, I haven't received any feedback indicating issues with platform stability, which our engineering team would certainly inform me about.

We've had no issues with the product scalability so far, whether it's individual customers or even as an aggregated group.

The size of the environment varies. We have some small customers with only a handful of virtual machines and others with two, three, or four virtual machines.

In our previous company, we used VMware Site Recovery Manager and Veeam. However, over the last 12 to 14 years, we have primarily used Zerto.

We have our private cloud, and that's where we primarily use Zerto. We also manage some Microsoft Azure environments where we have sparingly used the service, mainly because the same functionality is not present as it is when using it in a private cloud.

Disaster recovery as a service is a significant component of our overall cloud services. So, the ROI lies in Thryv's profitability, as we offer a managed service that adds value to our customers and generates a profitable revenue stream.

The product's pricing is the one area where it is less competitive. However, we understand why it costs slightly more comparing the features and capabilities. Customers prioritizing price might choose a solution offering different RPOs and RTOs for a lower cost. We have provided feedback on whether there could be a lighter option or alternative that's more cost-effective for the customers while balancing cost and performance. It would help Zerto and us win more business.

The product is superior compared to the other vendors.

We offer disaster recovery as a service powered by Zerto. We have multiple disaster recovery targets in the US and the UK and are expanding into Canada and Hong Kong.

I am happy that they've reconsidered the decision to stop supporting Hyper-V, especially with all the changes happening in the Broadcom world and customers looking at it as a solution. Zerto's continuous support is key.

The near-synchronous feature is a differentiator. Other platforms compete with Zerto, with Veeam being the primary one, trying to get the same capabilities. It is a key factor for clients who need low RPOs and the ability to protect their data with minimal potential data loss. It cannot eliminate the potential for data loss entirely and has a minimal impact. If the customers have a production-impacting event, their data is as close as possible to a mirror of what they had at the time of the production loss. So, it is a significant factor.

To some extent, we have implemented DR with Microsoft. It is less feature-rich and has a different implementation. We offer the service but don't offer much in the public cloud. Replicating out of the public cloud adds a whole other set of challenges. We can replicate it to a VMware-based cloud. However, no VMware tools are available if we want to replicate it outside of Microsoft Azure. It makes for a different recovery and is a bit more labor-intensive.

It has greatly impacted the RPOs. As long as our customers have enough bandwidth to transmit the changes across the network to our cloud, the RPOs generally take a minute. However, if the customer has bandwidth constraints, it can take up to five minutes.

With Zerto, recovery is much cleaner and faster. It's orchestrated better, and the testing capability within the cloud is a valuable differentiator. Unfortunately, we don't have many customers experiencing disasters, so our experience is generally around the testing component and making simulated or even full recoveries for customers seeking that. It has always performed well.

I would give it a nine for everything around capabilities and the product itself. The only drawback is the pricing. If we could get a better pricing model, especially in larger deals where we need to be more competitive for price-conscious customers, that would be beneficial.

Overall, though, I'm happy with Zerto as a partner. My reaction would have been different if the Hyper-V decision hadn't changed, as that would have caused complications for some customers.

Our primary use case is for backup and disaster recovery.

The most valuable feature is the disaster recovery capabilities. The fact that we can have a clinic across the country backup in as little as 45 minutes is incredible.

Zerto has enabled us to do disaster recovery in the cloud. This ability is very important because we have over 419 hospitals across the country and being able to quickly get a hospital up in Colorado while I'm in Alabama is impressive. The speed is impressive and it's easy to get it back up.

We use Zerto to protect VMs in our environment. Zerto's overall effect on our RPOs has been fantastic. Coming from our C-suite level and getting reports of how long hospitals are up versus if we do have disaster recovery, the amount of time to recover using Zerto is fantastic. We can have them back up in as little as 45 minutes. I don't have to hear all the bad sides of it, they're very happy when the hospital's back up and making money.

The other company we used before was Commvault, and we had had multiple issues with them with fragmented backups. Some backups weren't taking properly, and we did have a DR situation with them, and they were not able to recover all the data. That was our big push to find something else, and that's where we found Zerto.

Zerto's ease of use compared to other solutions is a ten out of ten.

As one who is implementing it, my biggest gripe is the ticketing system. Zerto has since upgraded that, so right now, I have no complaints about it.

I have been using Zerto for around one year but my company has been using it for about two.

The stability is a ten out of ten, we haven't had the issues with them like we did with Commvault. I have no complaints.

Scalability is seamless. We're able to add another server and within the hour build on top of that.

If we're ever out of licenses, I could just send an email out and say that we need to add some more, and it's done.

Our environment is large. We have 419 hospitals across the country.

Their support is a ten out of ten. I have not had any issues with them. It's been fantastic every time I've had to deal with them. They've resolved all of my issues.

The deployment was easy and seamless. We put in a ticket. They get our new servers added and within an hour we have new deployed servers on the solution.

We see ROI in the uptime of hospitals that had a disaster recovery scenario and how quickly they're back up and making money at those hospitals.

I would rate Zerto a ten out of ten.