We performed a comparison between Dell Avamar and Quest QoreStor based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, NetApp and others in Deduplication Software."I have found the product to be scalable."
"Scheduling is valuable. It does a good job of backing up, and it does a good job of restoring. Nobody has got a problem with that. The agents are well supported."
"Centralization is Avamar's biggest advantage. It moves data to a central location from various geographical locations."
"Dell EMC Avamar is easy to work with and is user-friendly."
"Avamar has long been the best in its class, but that's changing as new solutions emerge. However, Dell has traditionally been a leader in deduplication and compression. Avamar enabled us to shift data from on-premise local appliances to data centers and multi-tenant infrastructure. That's a powerful feature. because customers can back up to the cloud without upgrading o high-capacity links or congesting their backups."
"Stable and scalable backup and recovery software, with good technical support."
"The stability is okay."
"The most valuable feature is the integration with Data Domain and your VM stacks."
"Data deduplication and replication would be the top two features. The encryption and cloud tiering are also attractive for the future."
"The features we use for the data deduplication are nice because we're able to back up a much larger amount of data, yet it doesn't necessarily take up that much data on the devices."
"QoreStor has helped us to reduce our backup storage requirements on-premises. We've been using the same devices for quite a while, and so it lets us keep using them as opposed to having to rip out all that hardware and create a new on-prem solution. The advantage here is even if we had to retire the hardware tomorrow, the QoreStor part doesn't change. We just have to have additional hardware and put the solution back on whatever hardware we pick and it'll do the same thing."
"The dedupe and compression are pretty extreme. On disk, we're getting dedupe rates of up to 65 percent of data and compression of 34 percent. When you go to the cloud, it's more like 76 percent for dedupe and almost 50 percent for compression."
"Deduplication is the most valuable feature. It saves us a lot of space. When we back up 100 terabytes of data, after dedupe, it only uses maybe five to six terabytes for the disk space in QoreStor."
"It integrates with various backup software solutions, which makes it compatible with existing backup workflows and processes."
"The bare-metal restores could be improved."
"Avamar is still competitive because of the way we have deployed it, but we need to diversify and shift away from specific technologies. In addition to hypervisors, virtual machines, and bare metal servers, our customers need protection for Microsoft 365, SaaS, and the public cloud, so we need other technologies in the business to cater to those customers' needs. Those are the enhancements we would want from the Avamar platform, but that's not likely to happen. Dell has PowerProtect and Apex backup services. There are other Dell solutions that we'll use to fulfill our customers' requirements."
"A benefit would be support for either Azure Cool Storage or AWS Glacier."
"Interfaces need to be improved."
"The solution could improve by having better integration and more flexibility."
"Desktop-laptop backups and backup over the WAN needs lot of improvisation. For DTLT there must be a provision to push agents from the management console."
"Avamar needs a greater emphasis on storage targets. If it's going to keep pace with the times, it needs more ability to leverage cloud storage."
"Avamar cannot back up Nutanix as a virtual solution."
"The ransomware protection of QoreStor could use improvement."
"The installation could use improvement. The initial installation was a little touchy and it's not really user-installable. You have to have a connection to support to install."
"The management interface is in need of improvement. The graphical user interface (GUI) for the web management tools appears clunky, and not super intuitive."
"The setup of the software is definitely not the easiest thing. I worked a lot with Quest engineers, especially in the early days when we were first testing it and trying it out. I actually had some of the developers working with us at one point because they were going through these point releases, and I was having trouble getting it to work in this S3-compatible situation. We got it all working eventually, but setup is definitely not the easiest thing in the world."
"They need to increase their maximum capacity. Other than that, they're doing a pretty good job."
"In terms of improvement, we would like to have an Air Gap feature to prevent a virus from attaching to something. So that when we don't do a backup, we want the QoreStor to stay offline. It would be a nice feature to have."
Dell Avamar is ranked 4th in Deduplication Software with 81 reviews while Quest QoreStor is ranked 13th in Deduplication Software with 6 reviews. Dell Avamar is rated 7.8, while Quest QoreStor is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Dell Avamar writes "Stable, integrates well with other solutions, and has a good price, but its UI needs a refresh". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest QoreStor writes "Multi-thread backups and snapshotting have eliminated the scheduling issues we had to deal with around backups". Dell Avamar is most compared with Dell PowerProtect Data Manager, Veeam Backup & Replication, Dell NetWorker, Dell PowerProtect DP (IDPA) and Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), whereas Quest QoreStor is most compared with Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), HPE StoreOnce, ExaGrid EX Series and DD Boost.
See our list of best Deduplication Software vendors.
We monitor all Deduplication Software 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.