We compared Nasuni and Rubrik across several parameters based on our users' reviews. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below:
Comparison Results: Nasuni offers a diverse initial setup experience, which some users found to be easy and straightforward, while others encountered issues. Nasuni provides more flexibility and options for data management and storage, whereas Rubrik is commended for its seamless integration and setup. Nasuni has areas for improvement, such as platform support and user-friendliness, while Rubrik requires enhancements in pricing and documentation. Nasuni's pricing is considered fair and transparent, while some perceive Rubrik's pricing as expensive. Both products deliver value and positive ROI, with Nasuni offering cost savings and increased efficiency, and Rubrik providing peace of mind and efficient data recovery.
"Another helpful feature, in addition to restoring a file that was deleted within 24 to 48 hours, is that we have the ability to restore a file or a folder that was deleted, going all the way back to the inception of that file or folder. That means we actually have unlimited backups to the inception point of data with Nasuni."
"Nasuni is tremendously easy to manage. It eliminates many of the administrative challenges associated with physical hardware storage, and you don't need to worry about any hardware failure or products reaching the end of their lives."
"The snapshot functionality and the unified file system are definitely the most valuable features for us. The UFS allows everybody across the organization to see the exact same data at the same time, instead of having different file servers with different structures on them, and that's mission-critical. We have different branches throughout our organization that have to act on that data."
"Its dependability and auditing capabilities are very important to us to be able to maintain a chain of custody of the information."
"My clients are happy with Nasuni because the transmission is seamless, and it consolidates all the existing file servers into one location. Also, Nasuni has no boundaries. It's infinitely expandable. They don't have to rely on the service provider for backup and restoration. It's self-serve."
"Snapshot backup is most valuable. It's quick and easy to use. It's controlled only by an administrator, which is very good. It takes 10 seconds to back up a spreadsheet of three or four megabytes."
"Nasuni offers us a single platform with a 360-degree view of our file data, which is definitely important to us. It simplifies IT operations tremendously. Because it is taking continuous snapshots, it eliminates a lot of work that was done previously when trying to manage backing up and restoring data files."
"The global file locking feature is valuable. The ability to quickly deploy new sites is also valuable."
"Rubrik is a faster unit from a hardware perspective. Things, like Live Mount, mean we can bring services back straightaway, then have them transition back into the live storage in the background. Because we can use Live Mount to do instant restores, a restore is now a five-minute job. Then, the rest of it is done in the background, rather than doing something for an hour before you actually get the restore back."
"It has a good interface which is simple to navigate and utilize."
"The most valuable feature is the archive to cloud location and the automation around the PowerShell script. There are also reports and dashboards."
"In the event of any issues or questions, the support is top-notch. We rarely need to use support, but when they are needed, they are always quick to respond and very knowledgeable."
"The fact that the API is so available to us with the playground — there's an internal and public playground — is also valuable. We can write API calls — and although I'm sure there's a way we could hurt the data — we write those calls with a lot of certainty that we won't be destroying anything. We write these API calls using really easy mechanisms and generate automation a lot faster."
"The archiving, off-of-box, is awesome. It lets you put your data where you want it and gives you the peace of mind of having more than one copy of it. And it's smart about the way that it does the archiving. It doesn't just copy one-for-one. It does all of its processing of the deduplication and compression before it sends it off to the archive, which helps with our cloud costs."
"The ease of use is the most valuable feature. It is a very simple system compared to just about any other back up technology. It is extremely easy to use and very versatile."
"The Live Mount feature is excellent; it's useful for the backup administrator and end user."
"Room for improvement would be the speed of replication of new files. I would also like to see cloud mirroring."
"There are some issues with multiple users accessing the same file simultaneously. There would be times when the global file would lock when several people tried to access it, so that could be optimized more."
"It would be helpful to have more built-in analytics tools to compare the storage costs between the various cloud providers. I would also like some graphing capabilities. We had a tool called Grafana that we used for graphing. I think some more visual analytics like that would be nice."
"We would like to have a user desktop agent to help improve the end-user experience."
"The speed at which new files are created is something that could be improved. For example, if you create a new file in another country, I won't see it for between 10 and 15 minutes."
"The only thing that I'd like to see is more support for platforms like OneDrive or Box.com."
"When we first set up our bandwidth limiting, we had a few problems when it came to managing it. This is something that could be made easier; however, we were able to make the changes that we needed to for our environment."
"Nasuni recently implemented a health system for filers. However, it needs better visibility because it lacks data and an explanation, or reasoning as to why a particular filer may be unhealthy."
"The dashboard and user interface could be improved to make them more user-friendly."
"They need to find a solution for SMBs. It is currently only suitable for enterprises or big customers. They need to find a solution that suits SMBs."
"The customer service and support could be a bit faster."
"In terms of what could be improved with Rubrik, we need to improve the backup for remote sites. The competitors are stronger in terms of their remote office back up. Rubrik needs to improve to be stronger for backup. This is the main thing."
"We would like to be able to do granular restores directly from Exchange. Also, more granular management of VM backups would help."
"Better integration for complex NAS structures having to mount at root adds time and workload to the process of NDMP."
"It is a lot more expensive than other solutions, but you get what you pay for."
"It does not offer image-level backups for Hyper-V 2012."
Nasuni is ranked 8th in Cloud Backup with 35 reviews while Rubrik is ranked 4th in Cloud Backup with 86 reviews. Nasuni is rated 8.8, while Rubrik is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Nasuni writes "We have less downtime and fewer trouble tickets from users who cannot access their shared files". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Rubrik writes "Automates the backup and recovery process, reducing manual human errors and global search allows for granular recoveries". Nasuni is most compared with Panzura, WekaFS, CTERA Enterprise File Services Platform, Qumulo and Pure Storage FlashArray, whereas Rubrik is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Cohesity DataProtect, Commvault Cloud, Azure Backup and Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain). See our Nasuni vs. Rubrik report.
See our list of best Cloud Backup vendors and best Disaster Recovery (DR) Software vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Backup 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.
