Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Backupify Google Workspace Backup vs Veritas CloudPoint comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 3, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Backupify Google Workspace ...
Ranking in Cloud Backup
53rd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
SaaS Backup (29th)
Veritas CloudPoint
Ranking in Cloud Backup
62nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Cloud Backup category, the mindshare of Backupify Google Workspace Backup is 0.3%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Veritas CloudPoint is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Backup
 

Featured Reviews

IM
Inexpensive, easy to configure, good support, and it is easy to scale up when needed
The most valuable feature is the interface, which is very nice to work with. Whether you're working on the appliance itself, or you're working on the cloud, it is basically the same interface. It got to the point where when we needed to recover a file, we didn't look at the backup solution anymore. Instead, we went right to the Datto Backupify. Using Backupify took our time to recover from probably four days to 20 minutes. With this device, you're capable of logging into the interface or through an IP address to access the data that is stored on it. Recovery can be just a matter of spinning up a virtual machine or doing a full bare metal recovery, replacing the entire hardware-based server.
Boomchi Kumar - PeerSpot reviewer
Easy to setup, good support, has good indexing and file-level restore features
The primary use case of this solution is for backing up EC2 instances and RDS instances The most valuable features are the indexing, the file-level restore, and the replications between regions. Also, the ability to integrate it with the information management studio, and the backups for RDS…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable features are the ease of use and the fact that users themselves can self-provision and recover."
"The most valuable feature is the interface, which is very nice to work with."
"The product is good for volume-level backups."
"The most valuable features are the indexing, the file-level restore, and the replications between regions."
 

Cons

"The device does not allow you to do multiple backups over the whole environment."
"Not a ten because there's always room for improvement."
"They are niche with the work that they do, but they should have more integration with NetBackup and the reporting is something they should be working towards improving."
"The product needs to improve its file-level or granular-level backups."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The costs were about $1,000 USD to buy the unit in the first place, and then between $250 and $300 per year for support."
"When comparing to other solutions, the price is at par."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Backup solutions are best for your needs.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
18%
University
9%
Educational Organization
9%
Government
9%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

No data available
CloudPoint
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Two River Technology Group
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Backupify Google Workspace Backup vs. Veritas CloudPoint and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
848,253 professionals have used our research since 2012.