We performed a comparison between AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Quorum OnQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Backup solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The setup is pretty straightforward."
"It's on the cheaper side and not too expensive for users."
"Technical support has been very good. They usually respond quickly to our requests."
"The most valuable aspect of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is its instant block replication feature. This allows us to perform live block verification and eliminates the need to concern ourselves with recovery point objectives. This capability is particularly advantageous for critical workloads."
"The solution is dependent on the network bandwidth. For example, if they have a bandwidth of 10Mbps the solution will run a little heavier. If the bandwidth is good the solution runs well."
"For regular backup and restore solutions, this product is fine."
"We went from an organization with minimal to no disaster recovery. I was able to spin up the disaster recovery environment with AWS rather quickly and meet business requirements."
"It provides our disaster recovery solution. It works fine in our tests."
"The solution offers good documentation."
"I have used the BMR (Bare Metal Restore) in several emergencies and it has absolutely saved my bacon."
"The solution is very cost effective."
"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."
"It's easy to implement, easy to spin up, easily configurable, to drop-in appliances and network. There wasn't a lot of time needed to spin it up."
"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."
"I like this product because it is easy to use."
"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."
"The failback could be improved. It should be more intuitive."
"The bandwidth is a constant upload communication to the AWS DR environment, so if you do not have the proper bandwidth, it will definitely eat up your internet line."
"The UI could be a little sleeker."
"The solution's network setup and a lot of the control tower setup could be improved."
"I would like to see better support for creating and working with archives."
"Definitely there should be better logging. From a customer perspective I would like to see more logs on what is happening. If there is an issue, I would like to know what the problem is. Right now, we have to depend on the support of the vendor to check and let us know, because we don't have access to a lot of logging information."
"The only thing I would like to see is, they don't have a formal ticketing system. There is no way I can go back and see what questions we had six months back, what issues we had, and how they were resolved."
"I have not seen any areas that need improvement at this time."
"We found that some of the live SQL databases we were backing up would be inconsistent when we would restore them."
"It would be beneficial if file culling could be more granular."
"One thing that could be done to improve it would be a single pane of glass for doing disaster recovery testing, where I could have remote consoles in one place... I still have to go to each location in a browser and then bring up the console. I'd like to see them integrate that into a single pane of glass so I don't have to go to each server."
"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."
"Quorum OnQ can be improved by providing support for other operating systems like Ubuntu."
"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."
"Quorum OnQ's user interface is not very attractive and should be made more attractive."
"The cost could be reduced."
More AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is ranked 23rd in Cloud Backup with 11 reviews while Quorum OnQ is ranked 26th in Cloud Backup with 21 reviews. AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is rated 7.4, while Quorum OnQ is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery writes "Free, easy to use, and offers good 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". AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is most compared with Azure Site Recovery, AWS Backup, Oracle Data Guard, VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery and Zerto, whereas Quorum OnQ is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Cohesity DataProtect, Acronis Cyber Protect and N-able Cove Data Protection. See our AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs. Quorum OnQ report.
See our list of best Cloud Backup vendors, best Disaster Recovery (DR) Software vendors, and best Backup and Recovery vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Backup 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.
