We performed a comparison between Quest NetVault and Quest Rapid Recovery based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Backup and Recovery solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The user interface is good."
"It has File and SQL backup, which is the main benefit for us."
"The platform helps us with efficient QoreStor deduplication (DD) capabilities and configuration."
"The solution allows us to block off our network and only give access to whatever we want."
"The interface is very user-friendly."
"If a job is pending, the solution communicates it to us through emails."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not that complicated. Deployment took maybe about 15 minutes."
"Having the web-based interface is important to us because we can access it from any computer in the network, rather than having it installed and available for use only on a specific one."
"The solution offers a 100% guarantee that if it's backed up you will be able to restore it onto any platform you want."
"The fact that it can take a snapshot of everything on a server and replicate it on another server in real-time is the most valuable feature."
"The general backup for replication and virtual standby are the most valuable aspects. It does what it says it does. It's a decent tool for not a big budget."
"The local mount utility is most valuable. I do restores fairly regularly. Thankfully, I have not ever lost an entire server that I've had to resurrect, but I certainly have people who erroneously saved over a file or have deleted a file. So, we've done that quite a bit. We still have the DL4000 appliance, and we had, kind of, extrapolated that out over a five-year period. Now, we're in year six, so we had to add storage, which we did as a SAN next to DL4000, but prior to adding in that extra storage, we, here and there, would run into situations where for whatever reason, it would want to be pulling a new base image, and then we would run out of storage. So, we would utilize the archive feature and archive the old data that we want to hang on to, but we don't necessarily need it taking up current data storage. Being able to export out really old data is most valuable to us. Then, we just store that on a NAS that we keep in another building."
"Built-in encryption helps to secure our data as it travels from our on-site server to our off-site backup server."
"The compression and deduplication features have helped to save on storage costs."
"It is very easy to use and very easy to manage. The fact that I can easily recover data is valuable. I don't use it much. The only way I have been using it is that sometimes, people ask to recover the data, which is a very easy process. It takes only a few minutes to get in and get the data from the server."
"The most valuable feature is the disaster recovery process from the data center."
"The stability of the solution is poor."
"The interface can be improved. It should be more clear what features are available and make them easy to find."
"There are certain issues with the product that we report to Quest, and we get offered a workaround instead of a fix. There could be better interaction with the development teams, perhaps in terms of transparency."
"The storage capacity is very low."
"There are command-line limitations. There is not a very strong possibility to work with the command line. The commands that are there are not that powerful, and you need to be very good at scripting, for example, in PowerShell or in Bash in case it is running on Linux systems. You need to combine a lot of commands together, and still, you will not get a great output that is presentable to others. You cannot work with it as easily."
"The product’s SQL backup plugin needs improvement."
"In the next version, I would like to see support for the MongoDB database. As it is now, there is no component that works with it and we cannot back the data up using NetVault."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"The on-premises deployment model shouldn't have a maintenance fee. If there's going to be technical support, they need it to be free or it should be paid on upon adopting the solution."
"In terms of what needs improvement in Quest Rapid Recovery, though the solution is seamless, right now, they are just giving the software which means we'll need to arrange the hardware. If they can combine the appliance and software, that would be a great approach. In the next release of Quest Rapid Recovery, it would be great if they'd add a folder backup feature because only a snapshot backup feature is available at the moment."
"In case, if there is anything, it would be the speed of the operation to be finished. Even then, I can easily work on the storing function before the operation is finished."
"I think the self-paced learning and knowledge base can always be improved so that users can self-service without having to contact either a reseller or Quest. I know there are things that I would have been looking for to try and solve. And the only way I could get there was to actually open a ticket rather than go through self-service through the portal."
"It's not really Quest's fault, but the only issue that I had during the time when I was doing a lot of our restores is whenever the server reboots, it has to bring all of the repositories back in again, which takes around five to six hours to pull eight terabytes back in again."
"It is quite surprising to me that the configuration cannot be backed up automatically, and I think that Rapid Recovery should have an option for scheduled configuration backup."
"The terminology didn't seem easily available. When I go to the website, it is hard to search for things. You get all the articles, then you finally get the search button. They need the search at the top of the knowledge base. Then, on occasion, if you get an error message in the system, which is very important, it says, "Click here for more information," but I never get more information. The search engine doesn't find it or it is some weird error. It has never worked for me."
"I don't really think that there is a whole lot that needs to be changed. It would be nice if you could deploy the agent without having to reboot. When I upgraded my core to the latest version, I also wanted to update all of my servers, but I had to put that off because I can't just shoot it out there. I have to make sure it is at a time when I can do a reboot right away."
Quest NetVault is ranked 46th in Backup and Recovery with 10 reviews while Quest Rapid Recovery is ranked 26th in Backup and Recovery with 18 reviews. Quest NetVault is rated 7.2, while Quest Rapid Recovery is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Quest NetVault writes "Easy to use, stable, affordable pricing model, and good technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest Rapid Recovery writes "Allows us to do point-in-time recovery and mount the whole server and saves quite a bit of time". Quest NetVault is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Veritas NetBackup, Commvault Cloud, Rubrik and Cohesity DataProtect, whereas Quest Rapid Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), Azure Backup, Rubrik and Acronis Cyber Protect. See our Quest NetVault vs. Quest Rapid Recovery report.
See our list of best Backup and Recovery vendors.
We monitor all Backup and Recovery reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.