We performed a comparison between NetApp SnapCenter 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."What is very handy for our clients is the consolidated view. They have a dashboard with everything, through a single pane of glass. This is what they really need because, within seconds, they can have a good overview and see if there are any errors or any issues."
"Restoring and cloning are easy to do."
"The main advantage is its fast backup and restore."
"It's integrated with VMware vCenter. You can also see the backups there and you can do a restore completely out of vCenter."
"The way that it interconnects with VMware is really handy, because you can go right into your vSphere client, where you spend a lot of the day anyway, right-click on one of the VMs where you have backups running for however long, and you can restore either some files or restore the entire thing."
"It allows us to easily take a Snapshot and use it with any backup tools. We can also take Snapshots on the application side. We can also take Snapshots on the application side. If we want to restore an SAP or an Oracle machine, a normal Snapshot won't do it, but we can do so with SnapCenter."
"The backup process finishes very quickly."
"The product’s most valuable feature is cloning."
"The compression and deduplication features have helped to save on storage costs."
"Not having to switch tapes is wonderful. It makes it so easy. We have an on-prem deployment that we also replicate to an offsite replication host. So by not having to deal with tapes and moving them off-site every day and every week, that's amazing ease of use for us."
"Just knowing that the data is easily recoverable is our ROI. It definitely lowers risk."
"The local mount utility is most valuable. I do restores fairly regularly. Thankfully, I have not ever lost an entire server that I've had to resurrect, but I certainly have people who erroneously saved over a file or have deleted a file. So, we've done that quite a bit. We still have the DL4000 appliance, and we had, kind of, extrapolated that out over a five-year period. Now, we're in year six, so we had to add storage, which we did as a SAN next to DL4000, but prior to adding in that extra storage, we, here and there, would run into situations where for whatever reason, it would want to be pulling a new base image, and then we would run out of storage. So, we would utilize the archive feature and archive the old data that we want to hang on to, but we don't necessarily need it taking up current data storage. Being able to export out really old data is most valuable to us. Then, we just store that on a NAS that we keep in another building."
"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 solution offers a 100% guarantee that if it's backed up you will be able to restore it onto any platform you want."
"Probably the point-in-time recovery is most valuable. The other piece that is really nice is that you can mount a whole server at any point in time. So, you can mount the server with all the drives to a Z drive or something like that. It will just mount it all up, and your data is accessible right there on one drive, which is nice."
"The most valuable feature is the disaster recovery process from the data center."
"We would like to see more granular repording and reporting in bigger sets available in SnapCenter."
"We have hundreds of servers and systems and hundreds of customers and they're separated in a multi-tenancy way in NetApp SVM. Right now, the problem is that it always scan all SVMs. If I backup Customer A, it scans all SVMs, or tries to scan all SVMs, if there is a backup relationship on the storage. But it doesn't have the permissions, so we run into timeouts or the backup just takes too long. They're fixing that in the upcoming release..."
"What I did witness lately are issues with some Microsoft KBs, the updates. But it happened only once, and not on a major platform, it was on a small one."
"I feel a little bit that during the whole process of putting this software into production we were like a beta program. It was full of bugs... For example, we had a problem with truncating our Exchange log files... It has improved over time."
"If it was possible to create backups on non-NetApp storage, that would be helpful."
"The UI, the User Interface, needs to be improved. It's not as clean or modern as it could be."
"There is one area that needs improvement and that's in the alerting. When you set up your SMTP alerts, it only has - and I don't understand why - the ability to send an anonymous SMTP. It doesn't do basic authentication, which frustrated me for a while until I figured out that I'm not missing something. It's just not there."
"The tool could be faster."
"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."
"In case, if there is anything, it would be the speed of the operation to be finished. Even then, I can easily work on the storing function before the operation is finished."
"There could be better space management for incremental data. When you use incremental data, the space in the appliance keeps on going up. There should be a better way to manage the space. You have to manage the incremental data to reduce the time."
"I don't really think that there is a whole lot that needs to be changed. It would be nice if you could deploy the agent without having to reboot. When I upgraded my core to the latest version, I also wanted to update all of my servers, but I had to put that off because I can't just shoot it out there. I have to make sure it is at a time when I can do a reboot right away."
"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."
"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."
"In terms of what needs improvement in Quest Rapid Recovery, though the solution is seamless, right now, they are just giving the software which means we'll need to arrange the hardware. If they can combine the appliance and software, that would be a great approach. In the next release of Quest Rapid Recovery, it would be great if they'd add a folder backup feature because only a snapshot backup feature is available at the moment."
NetApp SnapCenter is ranked 40th in Backup and Recovery with 24 reviews while Quest Rapid Recovery is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 18 reviews. NetApp SnapCenter is rated 8.0, while Quest Rapid Recovery is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of NetApp SnapCenter writes "A stable solution that is mostly used by banks and financial institutions". 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". NetApp SnapCenter is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Cohesity DataProtect, NetApp Cloud Backup, Commvault Cloud and Veritas NetBackup, whereas Quest Rapid Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Quest NetVault, Azure Backup, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and Rubrik. See our NetApp SnapCenter 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.
