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."It has File and SQL backup, which is the main benefit for us."
"The solution allows us to block off our network and only give access to whatever we want."
"The interface is very user-friendly."
"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."
"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."
"The initial setup is straightforward. It's not that complicated. Deployment took maybe about 15 minutes."
"The user interface is good."
"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."
"Built-in encryption helps to secure our data as it travels from our on-site server to our off-site backup server."
"The most valuable feature of Quest Rapid Recovery for our organization is the VM recovery functionality."
"The general backup for replication and virtual standby are the most valuable aspects. It does what it says it does. It's a decent tool for not a big budget."
"The compression and deduplication features have helped to save on storage costs."
"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."
"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."
"The best feature of the solution is the user interface."
"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."
"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 product’s SQL backup plugin needs improvement."
"The stability of the solution is poor."
"The storage capacity is very low."
"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."
"The initial setup is a little complex."
"I would like to see the option of cloud-based management."
"Rapid Recovery can only backup the machine or disc, but it can't back up from folders, and files, and things like that."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"It's buggy. That's a big problem. We're arranging to get rid of it. We're going to switch to Veeam."
"I think the self-paced learning and knowledge base can always be improved so that users can self-service without having to contact either a reseller or Quest. I know there are things that I would have been looking for to try and solve. And the only way I could get there was to actually open a ticket rather than go through self-service through the portal."
"You can only take a snapshot from a virtual environment. It should have the ability to take snapshots from both a virtual and physical environment."
Quest NetVault is ranked 46th in Backup and Recovery with 10 reviews while Quest Rapid Recovery is ranked 26th 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 Cohesity DataProtect, whereas Quest Rapid Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), Azure Backup, 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.