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."The solution allows us to block off our network and only give access to whatever we want."
"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."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not that complicated. Deployment took maybe about 15 minutes."
"The interface is very user-friendly."
"The user interface is good."
"If a job is pending, the solution communicates it to us through emails."
"The platform helps us with efficient QoreStor deduplication (DD) capabilities and configuration."
"One feature I found that's the most valuable in Quest Rapid Recovery is the VM standby feature which is very useful for my current customer. The solution also has a great replication feature. The third most valuable feature in Quest Rapid Recovery is the five-minute RPO and the fifteen-minute RTO. The solution is also very user-friendly."
"Just knowing that the data is easily recoverable is our ROI. It definitely lowers risk."
"Built-in encryption helps to secure our data as it travels from our on-site server to our off-site backup server."
"The solution offers a 100% guarantee that if it's backed up you will be able to restore it onto any platform you want."
"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."
"It is very easy to use and very easy to manage. The fact that I can easily recover data is valuable. I don't use it much. The only way I have been using it is that sometimes, people ask to recover the data, which is a very easy process. It takes only a few minutes to get in and get the data from the server."
"The fact that it can take a snapshot of everything on a server and replicate it on another server in real-time is the most valuable feature."
"The compression and deduplication features have helped to save on storage costs."
"The product’s SQL backup plugin needs improvement."
"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 stability of the solution is poor."
"The storage capacity is very low."
"The interface can be improved. It should be more clear what features are available and make them easy to find."
"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."
"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 initial setup is a little complex."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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'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."
"Rapid Recovery can only backup the machine or disc, but it can't back up from folders, and files, and things like that."
"It's buggy. That's a big problem. We're arranging to get rid of it. We're going to switch to Veeam."
"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."
Quest NetVault is ranked 45th in Backup and Recovery with 10 reviews while Quest Rapid Recovery is ranked 24th 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 Azure Backup, whereas Quest Rapid Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Azure Backup, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), 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.