We started using HPE Zerto Software for the disaster recovery (DR) segment. For DR implementation, we are using the HPE Zerto Software tool.

HPE Zerto Software helped to reduce downtime in our corporate IT environment, and it was a very smooth dry run. In our corporate IT environment where we used HPE Zerto Software, it was a good experience regarding RTOs and RPOs.

HPE Zerto Software is very quick. It reduces our DR testing and takes less than 30 minutes.

To copy the data from one site to another site, HPE Zerto Software is a very powerful tool. We have two environments, Dell and HPE, so now it's very easy to move files from one place to another with HPE Zerto Software.

HPE Zerto Software is a very good tool with ease of access. We can easily move data from one place to another and replicate it. To manage two types of data centers, DC and DR, HPE Zerto Software is a very useful tool. Replication with the HPE Zerto Software is very smooth.

The migration part of the HPE Zerto Software is already there. In terms of improvement, we have VMware and Nutanix, and we are looking for solutions to perform migration between these two setups to save costs.

We have used HPE Zerto Software for more than a year.

I have not experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues with HPE Zerto Software.

We are expanding the usage of HPE Zerto Software currently from a two-node to more nodes.

The technical support for the HPE Zerto Software is good and very quick. Whenever we raise tickets, we generally get the solution fast. I would rate the technical support of HPE Zerto Software a nine out of ten because when we raise technical issues, they can take a little time but they do provide a solution.

Earlier we were not using any other solution for DR. We recently started using HPE Zerto Software for DR.

We have two environments. There's a corporate IT environment and a smart city environment. We have done the implementation in the corporate IT, and it was very smooth. We had a good experience with the solution.

During the implementation, we encountered no major challenges. Everything is working smoothly, and the implementation process is very quick. The partner support has been excellent. Currently, we are using an on-premises setup with two data centers. One data center serves as our primary data center, while the other acts as a disaster recovery site.

It's still in the implementation stage, but we have seen an ROI.

We have not had any incidents of ransomware. The cost of any downtime for our organization would be approximately $10,000.

My experience with the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for the HPE Zerto Software was good.

We started the communication with HPE for HPE Zerto Software for DR, and did not look around at other solutions. HPE Zerto Software was already in place, so we started using it for DR.

We are using Fortinet as a cyber vault solution, but in the future, we can explore other options. DDoS attacks and other aspects have to be covered in the next version of our cyber vault solution approach.

I would rate HPE Zerto Software a ten out of ten. It offers ease of access and fast implementation.

My main use cases for HPE Zerto Software include multiple applications. Fortunately, I haven't needed to use it for disaster recovery yet.

We use it to recover from badly developed software that we implement in production. We use it to clone machines to other hypervisors. Additionally, we have it replicated in case we need disaster recovery.

HPE Zerto Software's features have benefited my organization significantly. I can sleep peacefully now. If I encounter a problem in the future, I have a solution since I have two data centers connected to a WAN connection, and all my business-critical machines are replicated on that side. We are also making a plan to include this in a cloud vault to be more secure.

For instance, we had to use it once when a developer put some problematic code into production over a weekend. This broke the entire database and the sales software we had in production. It took us only 1.5 minutes to restore everything.

The feature of HPE Zerto Software that I find most impressive is its ability to work with one connection. This is remarkable. Normally, you need a full fiber connection, such as a dark fiber, to go point-to-point to have low RPO. Currently, we are achieving an eight-second RPO with just a 100 megabit connection.

It's easy to use. We don't need formal training.

It performs its intended functions effectively. In my country, we often have discussions with people who believe it's a backup system. It isn't.

The near-synchronous replication is very good. It's amazing. It's important for us in the manufacturing industry, and we cannot lose our systems for more than a few minutes. Every minute means a lot of money wasted.

It's helped reduce downtime in certain situations. We now have a 1.5-minute recovery time. It's saving us tons of money. For every ten minutes down, we can lose thousands of dollars in production.

It's positively affected our RTOs and RPOs. I've never seen anything like this. It's almost like magic. It's very good. In the worst case, we might have 11 seconds of RPOs.

HPE Zerto Software could be improved by including everything in the same package. If I had to suggest an improvement, I would want everything in the same package, such as HPE Zerto Software and Veeam together. Currently, I have to administer them separately, which can be more complicated for the infrastructure team. That would be beneficial.

Regarding critical features, I don't see anything more than what HPE Zerto Software is already providing.

I have been using HPE Zerto Software for approximately one year.

I assess the stability and reliability of HPE Zerto Software as good. I haven't experienced any downtime, crashes, or performance issues. Though it's not perfect, when HPE Zerto Software encounters problems, they provide a notice or email, and the system recovers automatically.

It's easy to scale simply by buying more licenses.

I evaluate customer service and technical support for HPE Zerto Software as very good. The service in my country has been excellent.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate customer service and technical support as ten because the HP team addresses all our problems and questions. They visit our plant and assist with installation and everything else.

Prior to adopting HPE Zerto Software, we are planning to implement Alletra. We need full flash for the next step in our infrastructure planning to make it more resilient and faster.

I would describe my experience deploying HPE Zerto Software as very easy and efficient. We implemented it into production in just two hours.

I have seen a return on investment with HPE Zerto Software, though it's difficult to quantify as our business is not IT-based. The company will certainly see the value if we encounter issues with ransomware or similar problems.

My experience with HPE Zerto Software regarding pricing, setup costs, and licensing has been positive. The pricing is favorable, especially when compared to a metro cluster.

Before selecting HPE Zerto Software, I didn't see another comparable solution. It currently stands unique in the market.

My advice for other organizations considering HPE Zerto Software is to try it and prepare to be surprised. You will lower your costs. That's the ultimate goal.

On a scale of one to ten, this solution deserves a rating of ten.

Our main use cases for HPE Zerto Software are primarily to provide our customers with their DR solutions and to facilitate migrations, either from on-prem to the cloud or data center to data center migrations.

The feature of HPE Zerto Software I prefer the most is the test feature, which allows you to test an environment in a bubble without having to affect production.

It allows you to test your DR strategy without having to actually do a full DR test. These features have benefited our organization by allowing the customers to really be able to write out their runbook, test it, and make sure that they're meeting compliance, whether that's every six months or a year test.

My impressions of HPE Zerto's near-synchronous replication are that it's an amazing feature that customers love. Even though it's set at five minutes, it's actually typically lower than that for most environments, and customers love the ability to have failover capabilities within seconds.

The ease of use for the solution is pretty straightforward.

What made us stick with HPE Zerto is that it is just a fantastic product and was a great product to add to HPE's portfolio. The solution has helped to reduce downtime in situations; it gave us the ability to roll back a bad change that was made. It was days' worth of changes that had been made. That amount of downtime would probably have cost the organization tens of thousands of dollars.

HPE Zerto Software has impacted our RTOs and RPOs effectively in a positive way where other solutions take longer; the board is happy with the speed for us to be back online.

The solution has definitely helped reduce our DR testing and automate it, although I do not know those numbers off the top of my head.

With the current updates primarily on the Azure side of it, documentation could be improved. That's not necessarily Zerto's problem since Azure is constantly changing things; Zerto will put something out, but Azure then will change it, and sometimes it's hard to follow that documentation.

HPE Zerto Software can be improved by keeping up on top of the Azure changes happening there, trying to smooth that process out, because there are many steps that you have to take in Azure, and that's not necessarily HPE's fault, it's just how Azure functions.

I've been working with Zerto for more than ten years.

The stability and reliability of HPE Zerto have been great; I haven't really faced any major challenges, and when we have, support has been really great at helping.

HPE Zerto Software scales with the growing needs of our organization as a great scalable solution; the only concern I have for really large organizations would be the cost. However, you have to start looking at the soft metrics that CFOs don't necessarily take into account.

Every time I've had to talk to support, whether it's been pre-HPE or during HPE's acquisition, the technical and customer support has been pretty good at resolving any issues that have come up. I really appreciate the stateside support.

Prior to adopting HPE Zerto, we were using different solutions. Looking at recovery solutions for the capabilities, RecoverPoint was there, which is what Zerto was based on. We considered the capabilities they offered versus solutions such as Veeam.

In an on-prem environment, when it was the Windows deployment, it was pretty easy to deploy. Now, once it went over to Linux, it's still been pretty easy on the on-prem side. Once you start getting involved with the public clouds, it gets a little clunky. Again, I don't fall down totally on the HPE side. It's the public cloud that may be at issue.

Customers have definitely seen a return on investment from HPE Zerto Software. They can automate their DR testing, test it more often, and in a worst-case scenario, they could have a help desk person literally hit a button to help them come back over or come up in the cloud or in another site if they need to.

My experience with the pricing, licensing cost, or setup cost has been such that I don't have to deal with the pricing side of it. The setup, primarily in the Azure space, has been a little clunky, and I don't necessarily fault HPE for that.

Before selecting HPE Zerto, we considered other solutions such as RecoverPoint. They would look at Veeam, even though Veeam's not in the same category, but it was something that people would use as a recovery solution.

For the capabilities and what it does today, I rate HPE Zerto Software a ten out of ten, and it's a market leader in that category.

Our current use cases for Zerto involve using it for DR, as we replicate to each other for disaster recovery across two different properties. We back up locally and then replicate across using Zerto.

I use Zerto to help protect virtual machines in my environment.

What I appreciate the most about Zerto is the simplicity of it all. It has allowed me to rely on Zerto to do file-level backups which, as a normal DR solution, you usually don't get. I've used other platforms for disaster recovery, and Zerto by far has been the simplest to implement and maintain.

The near-synchronous replication feature is incredible; I haven't used another solution that does it as fast and as seamlessly as Zerto.

I have not seen any effect on my RPOs. Prior to Zerto, we were not able to publish our RPOs, but now we're confident in them.

For improvement points, because Zerto is not a backup company, if they could implement some kind of backup solutions, it would help us out significantly. They can do file-level backups, but if in the future they could achieve application-aware recovery, that would be an incredible help for us.

I have been using Zerto since 2016 in my career.

I have not seen any instability, such as lagging or crashing, in Zerto.

Zerto is very scalable.

I have contacted Zerto's technical support and customer support.

Their support is very knowledgeable about the product. I was concerned because I had reached out to Zerto support directly before they became an HPE company, and although I had never had a problem, I found that after reaching out to support following the HPE acquisition, they did not skip a beat. The support has not dropped off whatsoever.

I would give them a nine out of ten for support.

The initial deployment of Zerto was easy for me.

I was up and running within an hour to fully set it up.

It was just me who handled the deployment—no team was needed.

Regarding the pricing for Zerto, it's right on target. I was pleasantly surprised once I was introduced to Zerto. I was very impressed with the product but had that in my back pocket because I figured it was going to be overpriced. It was surprisingly affordable.

I have used VMware's SRM tool as an alternative to Zerto in my career.

The biggest difference between Zerto and SRM in my opinion is simplicity. SRM was clunky; you almost had to have an engineer maintain it, and it seemed it was a daily project. We just don't have the manpower, as we don't have an extra engineer or staff member to manage it, and it was way too clunky for us.

Fortunately, Zerto has not needed to help us reduce downtime in any situations, as we have not had a situation where we would have had to use it. We do bi-annual failover testing within Zerto, and they've always been successful.

My advice for new users on how to start with Zerto is to start with a demonstration and watch the product in action; don't just review slides by sales.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Zerto a 10.

We use Zerto for disaster recovery automation for our most critical, highest priority, and time-sensitive failovers.

I understand that Zerto can enable disaster recovery in the cloud rather than in a physical data center, but that's not the use case that we have here.

We primarily use Zerto as a disaster recovery product, but we haven't had a disaster. It hasn't allowed us to minimize downtime. However, it helped us avoid the need for downtime during testing scenarios.

Zerto helps to protect virtual machines in our environment, and that is our primary use case. Zerto provides the most aggressive RPO in the industry, and it really is one of the only products that can give you near real-time recovery.

We use VMware as a hypervisor platform to run all of our virtual workloads. Zerto is the replication service that I use to automate the failovers between my environments without having to have expertise in bringing application replication up, like a SQL cluster would require or an Exchange cluster would require, because the entire VM comes over. It helps us to reduce our overall VM footprint because we don't have to run resources in two different data centers. We can just shift them between the two using Zerto.

The ability to test a failover non-disruptively with Zerto is valuable, as it doesn't create any downtime for the business.

Near-synchronous replication works effectively, and it's important for our databases because that's going to give us the least amount of data loss on the failover.

I run a very dense VM-to-host ratio in my environment. Whenever maintenance is being performed on a host, all the VMs on that host have to be powered down and/or moved off to complete that maintenance cycle. It is frustrating when the protection of VMs doesn't get relocated to another host before the replication appliance powers down. It sometimes works great, but if the host has a lot of VMs on it, there may not always be enough time to relocate all of the VMs from a protection group standpoint to other hosts before the replication appliance that Zerto uses to manage that powers itself down. In such a case, you are breaking replication for the duration of that maintenance, and that can cause some support issues when you bring it back online, where you have to go in and manually recover it. I know they added improvements over the years. It's not as bad as it used to be, but at times, I still end up breaking replication when I do maintenance on my hosts.

I've been using Zerto in my career for about six years.

I've never had any stability issues with Zerto, as the management console has always been reliable, though there are occasional web timeouts. You just have to refresh your browser session to log back in if there's a stale browser window open or something like that, but it has always been easy to log in. I never had to open a support case to use the product. It has been more along the lines of a configuration change or replication. It is very reliable.

Zerto is quite scalable, as they added functionality where if you need to attach more disks and storage, it spins up additional replication appliances automatically. It doesn't require anything from the user to manage those. It happens automatically. I've been able to scale up as needed, with hundreds of VMs without any issues.

I've contacted Zerto's technical support. I've always had a good support experience with Zerto. The engineers are knowledgeable and respond quickly. When I open a ticket, I usually get a call within an hour or two. It's definitely good and better than other vendors that I've worked with.

I was previously using the VMware Site Recovery Manager, but it was very difficult to keep it functioning. We could not rely on that kind of uncertainty for a disaster recovery product. We needed something that's just going to work and not require a lot of assistance to keep it running, whether it's compatibility or upgrades. We needed something that was going to run when needed. Zerto is very reliable. It has definitely been a very stable product for me.

Zerto is the fastest among the solutions I have used. It usually takes less than five minutes to have a full recovery of the VM.

The initial setup with Zerto was easy. I did a proof of concept and got it running within the same day. Deploying it into production was again a very quick experience. The time required depends on how much of the initial configuration you want to do for the VMs you want to protect.

It was just me handling the setup and implementation of Zerto.

I ballpark Zerto's pricing at about $1,000 per VM, which I find fair for what it does, but the cost of entry was tough initially due to the minimum number needed to start. I really needed to prove to the business that it was worth the investment. We started with 15 VMs so that I could show the product does what it needs to do, but ultimately, we needed to protect all of our SQL workloads, so we quickly scaled up from there.

It's cost-prohibitive for non-critical workloads, so we wouldn't put development servers or any non-business-critical systems in there because we wouldn't need the aggressive RPO and RTO that Zerto gives us for those types of workloads. I accomplished those failovers through other replication technologies.

Overall, I would give Zerto a ten out of ten.

We use Zerto as a disaster recovery as a service which allows us to bring up our entire network infrastructure and all of our critical resources into the Zerto cloud.

The near-synchronous replication feature is very important to us. In the event of a total disaster, we would be able to maintain our presence in the cloud where all of our critical infrastructure will be moved from our on-premises to the cloud.

The RTOs and RPOs are both extremely good; we are talking about minutes versus hours and days to practically have a restore done. It is really helpful for us that we know exactly what the RPO times are, and all of those features allow us to do this.

Zerto has had an impact on our IT resiliency strategy. We are a small company; I am basically the CTO, the CSO, and I do desktop stuff. Having this very easy interface and reduced time to do things allows me to focus on other things that I need to focus on. It has me more at ease knowing that it will work the way it is supposed to, and if I need it, it is going to be there.

Zerto helped to reduce downtime to minutes. We have 90% less recovery times. I can go in there and see exactly what those times are to completely spin up the infrastructure.

I appreciate most that we can do quick failover tests without actually going to live failover, which is very helpful because we have to do SOC audits, and they want to see that we do test this. It is extremely easy to test to show whether or not these things boot up in a test environment, which they do.

Zerto is easy to use. There is a dashboard we log in to, and it shows us everything we need in one dashboard.

There can be a bit more logging. It seems a bit harder to find logs for test restores and all that. If they had a way to email the results of a test restore, that would be excellent.

We have been using Zerto for a good two years.

It is very stable.

Scalability is good. We have to pay for more scalability, and we would have to reach out to them if we were to scale up or scale down.

It was good. It took a little bit longer than I would have thought, but they were able to resolve my problem pretty quickly.

We used Unitrends for our disaster recovery, as well as our file backups, but mostly for disaster recovery.

Zerto is 100% above and beyond that. Unitrends was very clunky. It was hard to find stuff, hard to navigate, and extremely hard to use.

It was fairly easy. They sent some documentation, and I worked with the deployment team. It took a little bit; there was a learning curve since this is something I have never used before, but they did help with the initial setup and questions I had.

It was just me.

Zerto has reduced our organization's DR testing. Before, it was a huge cost. It was several thousand dollars to do a DR test, whereas now, I click a button.

Pricing is kind of expensive, but for what we get, it is probably worth it. I know they just had a huge price increase due to the VMware stuff getting expensive, which added about a thousand dollars a month to our bill.

I would absolutely recommend Zerto. If you need a good DR solution, I would say go with Zerto. There are a lot of other options that are cheaper, but you are not going to get the functionality that we have.

I would rate Zerto a 10 out of 10.

We use it for disaster recovery purposes. Since Zerto offers a near recovery point objective recovery, we utilize it to validate our servers from one location to another.

By implementing Zerto, we wanted to ensure that in the event of a disaster or ransomware, we are able to recover and not lose any significant amount of data.

Zerto is very easy to use. Installation is about half an hour, and then it starts protecting the data and VMs. It is not very cumbersome. The UI is built very well. It is fairly self-explanatory. To be able to stand up a product you have never seen in half an hour and get it functioning and protecting speaks to how good the UI and workflow are.

Zerto has near-synchronous replication. As a change is made on site A, it gets copied across the network to site B. We are five or six seconds behind production. If I have a heavily used system and I use traditional backups, I could be anywhere from 5 minutes to 23 hours behind. With Zerto, I am single-digit seconds behind. That works well for us.

Our disaster recovery test, which used to span an entire week, now takes two days. We used to recover our servers in the first two or three days with a backup product and then test for two days before tearing it all down. Now, we spend half a day on new servers and ensuring things work with networking, etc. We test the next day, and we are done in two days. Across the entire company, we are able to save significant man-hours by shortening the test from a week to two days. We are now doing smaller tests once a month and larger tests once a year.

Zerto has reduced our DR testing time by 60% to 70%. We are also able to do more disaster recovery testing. Previously, we were doing it once a year, whereas now, we are doing smaller tests once a month and our large tests once a year.

In recovery point objectives, we are single-digit seconds behind. In terms of RTOs, I can recover 350 VMs in 30 minutes. It takes less than several seconds to restore a single VM. From days to 30 minutes for 350 compared to 100 VMs is an incredible time-saving in terms of RTOs and RPOs for us.

I find it easy to use, and the UI is really easy to navigate. We reduced our time with backups from days to less than half an hour for the same data service.

The best aspect of Zerto is being able to test any day, any time. It provides a quick look to ensure everything is functioning correctly from site A to site B.

I would like to see different reporting options than what is currently available. I would like to be able to grab different data points that do not currently exist in the reporting system.

I would also like to see more of a runbook or playbook for using Zerto. If I have 350 objects that I am protecting, I would like Zerto to be able to fire them up in one order, rather than having to manually bring them up in a sequence.

I have used the solution for at least six years.

It is very stable. I would rate it a ten out of ten for stability.

It is scalable. I would rate it a ten out of ten for scalability.

The servers and VMs that we are protecting are across different business units. We have three people who are the administrators of the solution. 120 people were the testers, but there are only three full-time admins for it.

I would definitely rate them a nine out of ten.

I was using BMC Avamar Virtual Edition, which is really a BRS kind of product versus a disaster recovery product.

It is very easy to deploy. For us, the initial setup takes about half an hour.

In terms of maintenance, the most that we ever had to do with Zerto was install a patch. When there is a new patch, we give it a couple of months to make sure there are no other issues that pop up, but it is normal patching. We do not have to babysit it. We log in and get it done, and it just does what it is supposed to do.

Determining ROI is tough. In terms of man-hours, in the last disaster test, we had 120 users in the system. If we did that over a week, it would be 120 times 5 days. With 10-hour days, that is 6,000 man-hours. We now do it in 8-hour days or 1,920 hours. We are talking about a 4,080-hour difference between the old and new ways of doing things.

We feel it is pretty cost-efficient. For the amount of protection that we get for Zerto, we feel that it is at an excellent price point, especially compared to some of the other vendors that were just backup solutions. For all that it does, we feel that the price is good.

We dabbled in RecoverPoint a long time ago. At that time, RecoverPoint was specifically for physical machines and not virtual machines. The complexities with RecoverPoint and SRM, and having to manage two or three different products, made Zerto much more attractive. I am changing IP addresses, doing recovery, and replication all in Zerto. It is an all-in-one product, eliminating the need for two or three other things from different vendors.

It is also vendor agnostic, which is not the case with some other vendors. I can have HPE on one side and Pure on the other side for storage. I can have VMware on one side and Hyper-V potentially on the other side. Zerto can move data from site A to B. It does not care what we are using for servers or storage.

I would absolutely recommend Zerto. It is almost the only product in its market space that provides what it promises, such as near real-time replication and protection. The cost is very reasonable. There is no reason not to suggest Zerto for disaster recovery and ransomware protection.

I would rate Zerto a ten out of ten.

I use Zerto for continuous data protection.

The solution is very effective at preventing ransomware attacks.

We have very good security now. It's enhanced our security. It has also massively improved disaster recovery.

The solution offers the shortest RPO time, the five-second RPO time, and continuous replication. The RPO is beyond our expectations. It's improved our RPO rate by 50%. These are great features. We have enhanced our security level after using Zerto, and there is a massive improvement in disaster recovery as well.

It's a straightforward product.

The near-synchronous replication is a great feature.

We've used Zerto to protect our virtual machines.

It's impacted our RTOs by improving it by 200%.

Zerto has reduced downtime. We now have zero downtime using this product. It's improved overall by 90%.

We've saved a lot of time with Zerto. It's hard to quantify since we don't have any ransomware getting attacks.

It's reduced our disaster recovery testing by 50%.

It's helped our IT resiliency strategy by 100%. Before this solution, we didn't have a solution in place. Now, we are quite resilient.

I don't see any improvements needed so far; we really enjoy using this product. However, there could be improvements in support. Here, in Malaysia, there is no on-site support.

I have used the solution for between one to two years.

I would rate the stability ten out of ten.

I would rate the scalability ten out of ten.

I would rate the customer service five out of ten. There is room for improvement. We need more local support.

We only have experience with Zerto. I can't compare it to other products.

The initial setup took one day. It was easy.

We have Zerto deployed on-prem. We have it deployed in multiple locations.

The solution does not require any maintenance.

The implementation was done by just two to four people.

The return on investment has been around 50% to 60%.

Zerto is cost-efficient.

Zerto has fortified and improved the resilience of our IT infrastructure. We currently experience zero downtime and use it to protect our virtual machines. The improvement exceeds our target. However, we desire more local support.

I'd recommend the solution to other users. It offers a short RPO time and will fortify a company's IT infrastructure.

I rate the product ten out of ten. We're a Zerto customer.

We implemented Zerto because we wanted a flexible and quick tool that allowed us to recover in different situations. This purpose was successfully fulfilled by Zerto during the proof of concept phase, so we implemented it.

Zerto helps with quick recovery and integration with other processes. Providing as a service approach allows end-users to operate and perform recovery operations on their own assets based on their requirements and schedule preferences. It helps not only with recovery but also with DR tests that need to be executed at specific time frames, such as out-of-business hours. We had a few different requirements during its implementation, and Zerto helped us very well with all these needs.

Zerto has some specific options for replication, but it is mainly for virtual machines. We mainly use it for virtual machines. Zerto is not suitable for physical servers, but it can be used for virtual solutions such as OpenShift, Kubernetes, etc. In terms of its effect on our RPO, as I have not used a similar solution previously, the RPO value that we are getting is very good. It fits the requirements that we have from our customers because what we provide to our customers needs to be proven by the tests that we perform. Usually, their expectations are much lower than what we receive from Zerto. For example, we have application owners for whom 24 hours duration is enough to recover the business as compared to the 10 minutes that I have using Zerto. We use Zerto in real DR exercises and ask our customers to verify the results and the status of the recovered system and answer if the recovery was successful. We provide them the time needed to recover their system, and often, it is much quicker than what they require, so from our perspective, Zerto is very good. However, we cannot verify everything because we have some limitations in our DR test scenario. I can be 100% sure of the results of recovery only in the case of a real disaster on my infrastructure. At this time, based on the DR tests, it meets my customer needs.

We conduct DR exercises at least twice a year to measure the downtime we would have in the case of a real disaster. We simulate the disaster in a controlled environment and perform all related exercises. Once all activities are performed, we measure the time needed to recover systems from the data center that is down due to a natural disaster or technical issue. We get an idea of the downtime but the actual downtime varies depending on the issue type. It might not always be predictable or reduced through tooling as network or server issues can arise. In some specific scenarios, the downtime could be lower by using Zerto, whereas in some cases, Zerto would not help much. Based on the results of disaster recovery exercises and the RTO measured not only for one application but for recovering all of the applications in affected data centers, we can say that the time we need to recover the full data center is much lower than using traditional backup recovery solutions. Recovery with Zerto is much faster because we can recover in parallel many systems.

I am quite familiar with the user interface. It is easy for me to operate and perform different operations because I am an experienced user. In my opinion, the user interface is easy to understand and operate. The user interface is user-friendly.

Another important feature is the tool's automation capabilities, as it provides an external API to integrate with other tools and processes. This allows for a comprehensive IT ecosystem within a single dashboard, tailored to specific needs. Some operations can be limited for end-users. All of this can be provided not only through the GUI but also using the API. You can create your own application, integrate it with Zerto API, and develop features in your own application. You can use the API to integrate with your application and provide only the features that you want to end-users, facilitating custom application development. You can split the responsibilities based on the roles provided as well as based on your requirements. It is very flexible. From my point of view, the end-user experience is very good as an administrator of the tool and as the person responsible for the disaster recovery process.

As a user who used Zerto for eight years, there are specific issues that it cannot address. For instance, recovering physical servers is directly connected to the virtualized solution in use, meaning your infrastructure needs a VMware or Hyper-V solution. It cannot be used for bare metal physical server solutions. One improvement could be addressing the market segment related to physical servers. I understand this is a limitation of Zerto's technology. Still, from a customer's perspective, I would ask the vendor to find a solution to use Zerto for virtualized physical systems, such as physical servers.

A second area for improvement relates to the speed of implementation. There should be a more streamlined process for enterprise applications.

I have used Zerto for about eight years.

I did not encounter any issues during the operations, so I would rate it a nine out of ten for stability, so there is room for improvement on the vendor's side.

From my perspective, given the size of my infrastructure and the limitations based on the vendor's requirements and documentation, it fulfills my needs. Therefore, I would rate it a ten out of ten because I have not faced a situation where I needed more than what it provides.

It is being used at multiple locations.

I have the opportunity to use Zerto support, and I have used it many times for various questions and solving different issues or problems I encountered in my infrastructure. I would give them a rating of ten because it represents the highest level of support based on the technical knowledge of the support team, response time, and effectiveness of the provided resolutions.

Zerto was the first tool I started using once I took on the disaster recovery manager role in my company. I did not have experience with other tools.

The speed of implementation is an area for improvement. While deployment on straightforward infrastructure is easy, an enterprise company with strict access and vulnerability limitations requires manual configurations. This is neither easy nor quick.

Implementation depends on the environment and customers. From an enterprise perspective, I expect a more streamlined implementation process, as many steps require manual action. This challenge is specific to my company due to limited access and port blockages. Implementing such tools is a one-time task. My intention is to provide feedback related to the installation process, not the operation.

I do not have much experience with different tools, so I cannot directly compare Zerto with other solutions. While conducting our proof of concept, I compared prices with just one other vendor. At the time, the price for Zerto was more favorable. Since I only use this tool and I do not have the need for others, it is difficult to compare the price now.

Zerto is an asynchronous replication solution. It provides what they call near-zero RPO value. There is a delay of a few seconds depending on the parameters of your infrastructure, such as the bandwidth, the workload in your infrastructure, the distance between data center latencies, and the speed of the network connections. There is no one solution that meets all the needs. You need to decide whether you need a synchronous or asynchronous solution. You should be aware of the pros and cons of both and the requirements of your organization. Synchronous replication might be risky in some specific situations. What looks good on paper might not always be good in reality. Zerto meets our needs for flexibility. It mitigates different problems related to infrastructure, even though there is always the possibility of losing some data.

I would rate Zerto a ten out of ten considering the features, support, feature development roadmap, and the frequency of new features provided to customers.