We performed a comparison between Arcserve UDP 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 ability to switch between different hardware platforms and utilization tools are some of this solution's most valuable features."
"The most valuable features are the replication to the cloud and the deduplication."
"The most valuable feature of Arcserve UDP is live replication."
"The product provides instant and virtual standbys."
"It is very stable."
"We are satisfied with Arcserve UDP. The most important feature that we use and why we choose this product is the RHA feature."
"Arcserve UDP has a good configuration and user interface. It makes the job of an administrator easy."
"The solution has no limitations because it does backup for Linux and Windows."
"The most valuable feature of Quest Rapid Recovery for our organization is the VM recovery functionality."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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 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 product is not user-friendly."
"They could work on their marketing approach. I don't see many people leveraging it."
"Arcserve UDP is in the middle range of complexity. The interface can be developed a little bit more to be user-friendly."
"We could not go into granular details of retrieving backup information."
"The time to backup servers that sit in DMZ must be improved."
"The solution could improve by being more user-friendly. It can be difficult to assign destinations and choose which files and folders we need to back up. There are some aspects that are unclear."
"One of the biggest drawbacks of Arcserve UDP is that it does not have a single console, making it an area that needs to be considered for improvement."
"StorageCraft ShadowProtect can improve by making one console that can control backups of all desktops and servers in one place. Additionally, the recovery process of the backups is very slow and could improve. It's very slow when we went to recover a complete disc but to recover one file is very fast."
"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."
"When you do a full backup, all of the memory resources on the server are used, which is something that should be improved."
"The terminology didn't seem easily available. When I go to the website, it is hard to search for things. You get all the articles, then you finally get the search button. They need the search at the top of the knowledge base. Then, on occasion, if you get an error message in the system, which is very important, it says, "Click here for more information," but I never get more information. The search engine doesn't find it or it is some weird error. It has never worked for me."
"It's buggy. That's a big problem. We're arranging to get rid of it. We're going to switch to Veeam."
"Rapid Recovery can only backup the machine or disc, but it can't back up from folders, and files, and things like that."
"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."
"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."
"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."
Arcserve UDP is ranked 15th in Backup and Recovery with 19 reviews while Quest Rapid Recovery is ranked 24th in Backup and Recovery with 3 reviews. Arcserve UDP is rated 7.6, while Quest Rapid Recovery is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Arcserve UDP writes "The stability, security, and support of the product require improvement". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quest Rapid Recovery writes "Reliable and has useful VM standby and replication features, with a five-minute RPO and fifteen-minute RTO, and good technical support". Arcserve UDP is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Acronis Cyber Protect, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), Veritas Backup Exec and Rubrik, whereas Quest Rapid Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Quest NetVault, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), Azure Backup and Rubrik. See our Arcserve UDP 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.