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

Quorum OnQ 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

Quorum OnQ
Ranking in Cloud Backup
33rd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Backup and Recovery (46th), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (23rd)
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 Quorum OnQ is 0.5%, up from 0.4% 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

Mohamed Iqbal - PeerSpot reviewer
A stable and economical solution that provides quick disaster recovery
The most valuable feature of Quorum OnQ is quick recovery. We call it a single-click recovery. If any server goes down, crashes, or experiences downtime, we can bring up the DR (Disaster Recovery) server in just two minutes. We also have a "Single Pane of Glass," wherein we work with only a single window. You don't have to use multiple windows to perform basic tasks like failover or failback.
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

"When it comes to recovering what you need from a backup, it's really easy. You just drill through the directory, find the file and the date that you want, and click to recover. You then pick the directory you want to save it in. Usually, it takes a minute or two and it's done. It's quick and easy."
"From a disaster-recovery point of view, one of the things I really like is that I can test the virtual copy of the physical server on a test network and compare the servers side-by-side, without interfering with the production network. So I can see and make sure that the latest copy of the server is the physical copy of the server, without interfering with production."
"It is a stable solution."
"It does automated tests to the systems to make sure that you could spin them up if you needed to. And if something doesn't come back up in those tests, we get a notification saying the system didn't come back up."
"I like this product because it is easy to use."
"The biggest feature is being able to do a file recovery to the original server. That is extremely useful and has saved us a few times when we've had ransomware. In some of those cases, people's computers were locked down by viruses which spread to things they had access to, including server shares. But we were easily able to just restore to four hours prior, instead of a day or two or more ago."
"One of the most valuable features was the usability, since many of the features were very straightforward. The backup and restoration process was also very fast. Although we weren't able to fully test the scenarios, one of the features was that we could have it restored on a remote site. However, since we were on-prem, we weren't able to test the remote site restoration."
"The solution offers good documentation."
"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

"It would be beneficial if file culling could be more granular."
"There seems to be a lack of technicians. Sometimes they are very busy and I don't hear back for a day or two. The technicians they have are great. They are fantastic, but it seems difficult, at times, to get in contact with anyone."
"The cost could be reduced."
"Quorum OnQ's user interface is not very attractive and should be made more attractive."
"They have radio buttons that allow multiselection, which is not intuitive. Also, the URL for our environments is the same, making it confusing for management when handling different departments with different needs."
"There was a situation I faced in the past when I contacted the tool's support team, and it took them a while to respond."
"I don't love the scheduler, as I think that interface could use an overhaul."
"I paid for subscription of Firewall. I paid for subscription of endpoint protection. Thet should introduce single subscription for all services."
"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 initial expenditure for us was a little under $40,000 for the recent renewal. For the first three years after that, other than electricity, there's no cost. After that, their support contract has to be renewed annually. We spent close to $6,000, between the two offices, for support."
"The cost is higher than other software and services, but it is an absolute must-have."
"The pricing is about $1,400 a month. It's a little bit on the higher side. But it's one of those situations where time is valuable for me. So if it costs a little bit more money for me to have a solution that just works and requires less of my day-to-day management, I'm willing to pay a little bit more."
"When we first got the Quorum the licensing was different."
"When we quote the price of Quorum to customers, they find it expensive."
"We have never questioned whether it is worth it because it so obviously is a great value."
"The total for our current solution's licensing is about $14,000 for 12 servers for three years."
"The solution’s pricing is economical."
"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.
847,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Quorum OnQ?
It's a little expensive. That said, the cost aligns with other advocacy tools we have evaluated.
What needs improvement with Quorum OnQ?
They have radio buttons that allow multiselection, which is not intuitive. Also, the URL for our environments is the same, making it confusing for management when handling different departments wit...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

OnQ
CloudPoint
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

LCL Bulk Transport
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Quorum OnQ vs. Veritas CloudPoint and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
847,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.