We performed a comparison between Carbonite Server and Quest NetVault 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 seems reliable and easy to use."
"Easy verification of things is the most valuable feature."
"Technical support handled all our issues quickly and effectively."
"The efficiency and convenience are excellent."
"It does not slow down your computer or use a lot of resources as it works."
"The Granular Restore of SQL feature has been a lifesaver more times than I can count. One of the main reasons for looking at Carbonite was their support for platforms like AIX and AS/400 Series."
"The solution is a free engine to help work with the container."
"The solution is very stable."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not that complicated. Deployment took maybe about 15 minutes."
"If a job is pending, the solution communicates it to us through emails."
"It has File and SQL backup, which is the main benefit for us."
"The solution allows us to block off our network and only give access to whatever we want."
"The platform helps us with efficient QoreStor deduplication (DD) capabilities and configuration."
"The interface is very user-friendly."
"Having the web-based interface is important to us because we can access it from any computer in the network, rather than having it installed and available for use only on a specific one."
"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."
"The support for object storage isn't quite there yet. Its public cloud support can be improved. I would love to see the public cloud support for object storage, and it would be great, but what I always hear from the folks at Carbonite is that in a lot of cases, it directly competes with their cloud offering. So, I don't know when or where that will go or if that will go anywhere, but we are hopeful to see something. The dashboard is a little outdated. If they gave it a facelift and put some better design around their dashboard, that would be tremendous. I generally care less about the visual aesthetics of an application as long as it does what it needed to do, which is true in the case of this solution. We also have the Microsoft 365 platform. Because they're two separate platforms, I have to log in to my Microsoft platform to manage it, and I have to log into my Carbonite server backup platform to manage it. Having these two coexist together in one management console is really what we're looking for, but we went for it knowing this. We also knew that there would be some integration coming down the road. So, we're again hoping to see some of that coming in 2021."
"The Hyper-V backup has room for improvement."
"In the next release I would like to see an improvement in the auto failover option."
"The stability has room for improvement."
"It could be a little bit easier or faster to be able to access data files without having to download anything."
"The only thing that I would like to see improved is related to marketing. Currently, it is very difficult to find the right paper and stuff for me. Their marketing department should provide better information because currently, it is very difficult to find information on the internet. It was bought over by OpenText, and you won't be able to find a lot of information about this solution on their site. They should also provide training facilities for commercial purposes. Some of my colleagues recently went for pilot training, and they were technical. If I want to get trained, the training has to be more commercial. Currently, there is no such training for users like me."
"They do not yet have USB recovery but they are adding it in coming releases."
"The interface can be improved. It should be more clear what features are available and make them easy to find."
"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."
"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."
"The storage capacity is very low."
"The stability of the solution is poor."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"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."
Carbonite Server is ranked 35th in Backup and Recovery with 7 reviews while Quest NetVault is ranked 45th in Backup and Recovery with 10 reviews. Carbonite Server is rated 8.2, while Quest NetVault is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of Carbonite Server writes "A simple, efficient, reliable product". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest NetVault writes "Easy to use, stable, affordable pricing model, and good technical support". Carbonite Server is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, Oracle Data Guard, Azure Backup and Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365, whereas Quest NetVault is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Quest Rapid Recovery, Veritas NetBackup, Commvault Cloud and Rubrik. See our Carbonite Server vs. Quest NetVault 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.
