We performed a comparison between Quest NetVault and Quorum OnQ 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 platform helps us with efficient QoreStor deduplication (DD) capabilities and configuration."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"If a job is pending, the solution communicates it to us through emails."
"From a disaster-recovery point of view, one of the things I really like is that I can test the virtual copy of the physical server on a test network and compare the servers side-by-side, without interfering with the production network. So I can see and make sure that the latest copy of the server is the physical copy of the server, without interfering with production."
"One of the biggest features is that, even on the absolutely run-of-the-mill box, if I lose any one of my servers I can automatically bring it up virtually on the physical onQ Quorum device."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"The most useful feature is the one-click recovery."
"Quorum OnQ has taken the guesswork out of backup/recovery and disaster recovery."
"It is a very scalable solution."
"The biggest feature is being able to do a file recovery to the original server. That is extremely useful and has saved us a few times when we've had ransomware. In some of those cases, people's computers were locked down by viruses which spread to things they had access to, including server shares. But we were easily able to just restore to four hours prior, instead of a day or two or more ago."
"The change in the way that Quorum processes data has made a tremendous improvement in backup and replication times. While the familiar interface remains, the underpinnings have been finely tuned and the speed is incredible. My large Exchange Server went from 5- to 6-hour backups down to 22 minutes."
"The product’s SQL backup plugin needs improvement."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"The interface can be improved. It should be more clear what features are available and make them easy to find."
"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."
"I would like to see the option of cloud-based management."
"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 stability of the solution is poor."
"We found that some of the live SQL databases we were backing up would be inconsistent when we would restore them."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"There seems to be a lack of technicians. Sometimes they are very busy and I don't hear back for a day or two. The technicians they have are great. They are fantastic, but it seems difficult, at times, to get in contact with anyone."
"The cost could be reduced."
"They need integration with other platforms."
"The one thing they could do is some tweaking on the web solution that's supposed to monitor everything from one page, rather than having to bring each server up on its own webpage. It doesn't always accurately show what the system's state is at the time, and we have to restart that process now and then."
"I would really like it if they followed comparable products from other vendors and had an option where you could offload to tape. I know it sounds incredibly antiquated, but the benefit I see is that there would be a better air gap than you have with backing up to an online source."
"I would like to see iSCSI support added so that NAS storage servers could be protected. We heavily utilize NAS storage and the risk there is minimal backup options. Currently, we are backing up NAS to NAS which is costly and slow. Being able to integrate NAS server backup would be the last item on my Quorum bucket list."
Quest NetVault is ranked 45th in Backup and Recovery with 10 reviews while Quorum OnQ is ranked 48th in Backup and Recovery with 21 reviews. Quest NetVault is rated 7.2, while Quorum OnQ is rated 9.0. 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 Quorum OnQ writes "Took us just hours to do a complete server restore, with minimal downtime". Quest NetVault is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Quest Rapid Recovery, Veritas NetBackup, Commvault Cloud and Rubrik, whereas Quorum OnQ is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Cohesity DataProtect, Acronis Cyber Protect and N-able Cove Data Protection. See our Quest NetVault vs. Quorum OnQ 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.
