OpenText Data Protector

Name: OpenText Data Protector
Brand: OpenText
Rating: 4.1 (106 reviews)

Leader

Information Reimagined

Est 1991|Valuation $6.3B|Raised $14.3B

LinkedIn 550K|Website|Web traffic 1.1M|FTEs 19,900|HQ Waterloo, Ontario, CA

MarketsEndpoint Management (UEM)Backup and Data Protection

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

- Versus Veeam: Veeam is commonly shortlisted for VM-focused environments and virtualization-centric backup operations; Data Protector may be preferred where tape workflows and specific enterprise application integrations are critical. Comparative evaluation should be validated by proof-of-concept testing. - Versus cloud-native vendors (Druva, Cohesity, Rubrik): Cloud-first solutions may reduce on-prem infrastructure and simplify operational overhead; Data Protector generally competes on breadth of on-prem and tape-centric enterprise capabilities. - Versus NetBackup/Commvault: These incumbents compete in large enterprises and similarly emphasize broad workload coverage and governance capabilities.

Market share and adoption indicators (caveats)

Market-share signals derived from web-traffic inference and technology usage signals are indicative but not definitive for procurement decisions. Such sources should be used alongside customer references and industry analyst reports.

	OpenText Data Protector	Veeam Data Platform (example)	Commvault (example: SaaS)
Starting Price	Quote-based; trial options have been offered	Public examples exist for specific cloud offerings (e.g., published per-unit pricing examples for certain editions)	Published SaaS pricing examples are available for certain services
Best For	Enterprises requiring broad application integrations, mixed OS support, tape and hybrid operations	Organizations with VM-centric protection requirements and broad virtualization ecosystem integration	Large enterprises requiring policy-driven governance across cloud and on-prem workloads
Key Strength	Broad application-aware backup coverage and support for traditional enterprise/tape workflows	Strong adoption in virtualization backup scenarios and ecosystem integration	Broad workload coverage and mature platform capabilities
Key Weakness	Reported support variability, documentation gaps for some plugins, and specific restore or VM backup performance concerns	Licensing and administrative changes have driven mixed sentiment in parts of the market	Can be complex to deploy and estimate pricing for large, heterogeneous environments

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Versus Veeam: Veeam is commonly shortlisted for VM-focused environments and virtualization-centric backup operations; Data Protector may be preferred where tape workflows and specific enterprise application integrations are critical. Comparative evaluation should be validated by proof-of-concept testing.
Versus cloud-native vendors (Druva, Cohesity, Rubrik): Cloud-first solutions may reduce on-prem infrastructure and simplify operational overhead; Data Protector generally competes on breadth of on-prem and tape-centric enterprise capabilities.
Versus NetBackup/Commvault: These incumbents compete in large enterprises and similarly emphasize broad workload coverage and governance capabilities.

Market share and adoption indicators (caveats)

	OpenText Data Protector	Veeam Data Platform (example)	Commvault (example: SaaS)
Starting Price	Quote-based; trial options have been offered	Public examples exist for specific cloud offerings (e.g., published per-unit pricing examples for certain editions)	Published SaaS pricing examples are available for certain services
Best For	Enterprises requiring broad application integrations, mixed OS support, tape and hybrid operations	Organizations with VM-centric protection requirements and broad virtualization ecosystem integration	Large enterprises requiring policy-driven governance across cloud and on-prem workloads
Key Strength	Broad application-aware backup coverage and support for traditional enterprise/tape workflows	Strong adoption in virtualization backup scenarios and ecosystem integration	Broad workload coverage and mature platform capabilities
Key Weakness	Reported support variability, documentation gaps for some plugins, and specific restore or VM backup performance concerns	Licensing and administrative changes have driven mixed sentiment in parts of the market	Can be complex to deploy and estimate pricing for large, heterogeneous environments