We performed a comparison between Quest NetVault and Veeam Backup & Replication 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 interface is very user-friendly."
"The platform helps us with efficient QoreStor deduplication (DD) capabilities and configuration."
"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."
"The solution allows us to block off our network and only give access to whatever we want."
"If a job is pending, the solution communicates it to us through emails."
"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 user interface is good."
"It is a stable product with useful snapshot and replication features."
"The pricing of the solution is fair."
"Veeam Backup Replication has good performance and can do location-to-location backups. Additionally, it is user-friendly and easy to manage."
"The WAN accelerator feature has been the most valuable for me. That feature reduced the time needed to complete the task from 25 days to less than a week! This is compared with the original tools used: ntbackup, robocopy and Windows Server Backup."
"It most valuable features are seeding and faster backups over small links."
"The integration with some storage systems like HP or Nutanix and great support are the most valuable features. You get productivity support. You get a response within one hour, even in the evening or night. The functionality of the whole software is good."
"In terms of most valuable features, we are mostly using the Cloud Connect feature. It is flexible because you can use it on-prem and on cloud."
"The granular restoration that it provides for a business application is most valuable. For example, for Exchange, we can restore a single mailbox or email. We can also do SQL Server restoration and bare-metal recovery for operating systems."
"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."
"The stability of the solution is poor."
"I would like to see the option of cloud-based management."
"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."
"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 product’s SQL backup plugin needs improvement."
"The only issue on which we would like to see for improvement would be, potentially, the ability to do some different things with recovery, like faster recovery onsite."
"The implementation was straightforward. However, we used an integrator, the process could be easier for us to do it ourselves."
"In terms of what can be improved, I would say they could add automations for disaster migrations and for reverse replication. Overall, they need more automation."
"I have found that the reporting could improve in its structure."
"The virtual sandboxes seem complex to setup, so I have not invested time in leveraging this feature. It would be nice if this feature was more user-friendly."
"The ease of use could be improved, but I don't have a very deep amount of experience in Veeam, so it's difficult to say what could be improved."
"I would want them to improve some technical features that are still missing because we are working with NetApp NVMe and they're not fully supporting it yet. But both NetApp and Veeam know about it and they're working on it."
"Veeam Backup Replication is a bit difficult to use. If you have used other solutions such as Commvault, you will find it is much easier to use. Veeam Backup Replication does backups in a different way that is not as simple as other solutions. Doing backups of SQL Servers is much easier in Commvault. However, the difficulty could be the lack of experience I have had with Veeam Backup Replication."
Quest NetVault is ranked 45th in Backup and Recovery with 10 reviews while Veeam Backup & Replication is ranked 1st in Backup and Recovery with 328 reviews. Quest NetVault is rated 7.2, while Veeam Backup & Replication is rated 8.6. 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 Veeam Backup & Replication writes "Beneficial pricing model, user friendly interface, and many free features". Quest NetVault is most compared with Quest Rapid Recovery, Veritas NetBackup, Commvault Cloud, Rubrik and Azure Backup, whereas Veeam Backup & Replication is most compared with Acronis Cyber Protect, Azure Backup, Rubrik, Veritas NetBackup and Zerto. See our Quest NetVault vs. Veeam Backup & Replication 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.