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."It has File and SQL backup, which is the main benefit for us."
"Its dashboard is quite well done. When you log into the GUI, you can basically see everything you need to know. There is also the possibility to edit the view as you like, which is great."
"If a job is pending, the solution communicates it to us through emails."
"The user interface is good."
"The solution allows us to block off our network and only give access to whatever we want."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not that complicated. Deployment took maybe about 15 minutes."
"The interface is very user-friendly."
"The platform helps us with efficient QoreStor deduplication (DD) capabilities and configuration."
"The best feature of the solution is the user interface."
"Built-in encryption helps to secure our data as it travels from our on-site server to our off-site backup server."
"The solution's most valuable aspect is its ability to back up a physical server to another physical or virtual server."
"The most valuable feature of Quest Rapid Recovery for our organization is the VM recovery functionality."
"The solution offers a 100% guarantee that if it's backed up you will be able to restore it onto any platform you want."
"Just knowing that the data is easily recoverable is our ROI. It definitely lowers risk."
"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."
"Definitely, the mount and recovery points are the most valuable, because if someone deletes a file or something, or if something gets corrupted, we can always revert back to an old change because our repository goes about a month back. The ability to roll back files and the ability to roll back servers is really important."
"The product’s SQL backup plugin needs improvement."
"The storage capacity is very low."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"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."
"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."
"I would like to see the option of cloud-based management."
"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 interface can be improved. It should be more clear what features are available and make them easy to find."
"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."
"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."
"For the most part, it is really good in terms of flexibility and choice of recovery methods. What we found lacking was being able to back up virtual volumes that are clustered. We ran out of luck there. There should be an option for backing up clustered virtual volumes."
"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."
"Sometimes, when we have certain batches for Windows, it needs to be restarted. When it's restarted, the service is configured as a delayed start. Sometimes, you need to wait too long until it rights itself, or you have to do it manually."
"Rapid Recovery can only backup the machine or disc, but it can't back up from folders, and files, and things like that."
"One area where Quest Rapid Recovery has room for improvement is in the handling of snapshots on Hyper-V."
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.