We performed a comparison between Acronis Cyber Protect and Code42 Incydr 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 most valuable feature is the extra protection, especially for the backup."
"From my perspective, the most valuable features in Acronis Cyber Protect include ransomware protection and antivirus. These features not only add significant value but also play a crucial role in closing deals. When selling backup for Microsoft 365, these security features, like ransomware protection and antivirus, serve as a starting point to offer backup and protection."
"The licensing model is very good."
"Acronis Backup is valuable if your data is affected by ransomware, you are able to get it back."
"The tool’s licensing and pricing are economical for SMB customers."
"It is a very fast and reliable backup, which requires less management and restores quickly."
"The solution is stable and reliable."
"In terms of system-critical support, Acronis' technical support does really well. I would give them an eight out of ten for that."
"It has quite a bit of flexibility in configuring backup sets."
"Backup and recovery have been great, but I love having the ability to keep the hybrid type build which they offer."
"It had the ability to preseed by sending in a data drive and could restore by sending the user a data drive."
"Risk factors can be adjusted for all intricate details."
"Works in the background and users are able to perform restores."
"The solution is very stable. Very rarely do we have any issues with it. We don't have to deal with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We find it to be reliable."
"Security tools: Being able to monitor data going in and coming off our endpoints. Seeing what it is and where it's going is awesome."
"t has a very user friendly status bar with common errors and has logs built in to the console so we can review the issues or status of CrashPlan."
"In the span of six months, maintenance is done at least twice and you are told that it is coming up, with apologies for the inconvenience. It's a distraction, and it interferes with the backup schedule."
"Some of the default settings out-of-the-box should already be set up for the novice user. For instance, the warnings that say a hard drive has bad sectors and stops the backup from performing."
"We would always support better pricing."
"The reporting can be improved."
"When an error occurs, the information is not always easy to understand and these messages should be made more clear."
"The UI performance can be slow at times, especially when handling operations like checking backup status or initiating a restore. The response time for these actions could be improved."
"This is not a feature-rich solution."
"Because Acronis Backup is an on-premises solution, there is extra overhead. It's harder to manage, and there's no real remote access. You have to physically log in to the machine to manage it. The reporting feature works fine, and you will be able to send out reports. However, that is where it stops. The deployment could be improved and could be through a network chain. If we need to deploy two machines that are not connected to the internet but connected to two different networks, it would be great to have a machine with dual mix that has access to the backup server and to those machines. It would be like a relay that you can install on the machine with a two-mix, and that machine can then connect to your backup server and to the other machines. You should be able to see the other machines on that network and be able to deploy to it and push jobs to it."
"What I think could be improved is how I get support."
"In a couple of instances, we had a little bit of trouble in getting it distributed throughout the organization. We ultimately managed to do it, but they talk about it being a pretty simple process, and it became a little laborious. It would just turn away. The agents were not being distributed. It was just churning and churning and churning. When we were looking for specific categories of data, it was getting bogged down, but that was not even so much Code42, although some of it was their issue."
"Java, please get rid of Java."
"You can't always filter out data that you'd like to."
"I think one we can improve is the compression."
"I would like to see more flexibility on privileges, perhaps create another kind of admin for regions. Also, I would like the ability to access logs without having to be on the actual device or a super-admin."
"The application, written in Java, required far more system resources on a Client than other solutions."
"More security would be nice, I would love to be able to remotely brick a stolen laptop and it's hard disk drive (HDD)."
Acronis Cyber Protect is ranked 10th in Backup and Recovery with 117 reviews while Code42 Incydr is ranked 30th in Backup and Recovery with 78 reviews. Acronis Cyber Protect is rated 8.2, while Code42 Incydr is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Acronis Cyber Protect writes " Good backup solution but challenges with the stability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Code42 Incydr writes "Provides comprehensive visibility and protection, helps in identifying the gaps in security, and comes with excellent onboarding support". Acronis Cyber Protect is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365, Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud, Azure Backup and N-able Cove Data Protection, whereas Code42 Incydr is most compared with Threat Detection, Investigation & Response (TDIR) Platform, Microsoft Purview Data Loss Prevention, Forcepoint Data Loss Prevention, Morphisec and Backup and Restore for SharePoint & Microsoft Office 365. See our Acronis Cyber Protect vs. Code42 Incydr 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.