Carbonite Server vs Quorum OnQ comparison

"Technical support handled all our issues quickly and effectively."

"The solution is a free engine to help work with the container."

"The Granular Restore of SQL feature has been a lifesaver more times than I can count. One of the main reasons for looking at Carbonite was their support for platforms like AIX and AS/400 Series."

"It seems reliable and easy to use."

"Easy verification of things is the most valuable feature."

"It does not slow down your computer or use a lot of resources as it works."

"I find the BMR/image and the recovery pieces are valuable."

"The solution is very stable."

"It provides a smooth training experience and easy terminology for those in the advocacy world."

"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."

"I like this product because it is easy to use."

"I have used the BMR (Bare Metal Restore) in several emergencies and it has absolutely saved my bacon."

"A very high level security environment for secondary data."

"The solution offers good documentation."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."

"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."

"In the next release I would like to see an improvement in the auto failover option."

"It could be a little bit easier or faster to be able to access data files without having to download anything."

"The Hyper-V backup has room for improvement."

"The stability has room for improvement."

"The only thing that I would like to see improved is related to marketing. Currently, it is very difficult to find the right paper and stuff for me. Their marketing department should provide better information because currently, it is very difficult to find information on the internet. It was bought over by OpenText, and you won't be able to find a lot of information about this solution on their site. They should also provide training facilities for commercial purposes. Some of my colleagues recently went for pilot training, and they were technical. If I want to get trained, the training has to be more commercial. Currently, there is no such training for users like me."

"The support for object storage isn't quite there yet. Its public cloud support can be improved. I would love to see the public cloud support for object storage, and it would be great, but what I always hear from the folks at Carbonite is that in a lot of cases, it directly competes with their cloud offering. So, I don't know when or where that will go or if that will go anywhere, but we are hopeful to see something. The dashboard is a little outdated. If they gave it a facelift and put some better design around their dashboard, that would be tremendous. I generally care less about the visual aesthetics of an application as long as it does what it needed to do, which is true in the case of this solution. We also have the Microsoft 365 platform. Because they're two separate platforms, I have to log in to my Microsoft platform to manage it, and I have to log into my Carbonite server backup platform to manage it. Having these two coexist together in one management console is really what we're looking for, but we went for it knowing this. We also knew that there would be some integration coming down the road. So, we're again hoping to see some of that coming in 2021."

"They do not yet have USB recovery but they are adding it in coming releases."

"I paid for subscription of Firewall. I paid for subscription of endpoint protection. Thet should introduce single subscription for all services."

"I don't love the scheduler, as I think that interface could use an overhaul."

"They have radio buttons that allow multiselection, which is not intuitive. Also, the URL for our environments is the same, making it confusing for management when handling different departments with different needs."

"Better integration with cloud-based solutions like Azure and Office 365 is needed."

"They have radio buttons that allow multiselection, which is not intuitive."

"Quorum OnQ's user interface is not very attractive and should be made more attractive."

"They need integration with other platforms."

"There was a situation I faced in the past when I contacted the tool's support team, and it took them a while to respond."

"We pay 9,000 dollars per year for our license."

"The solution is open source."

"The pricing is between $120 and $150 per year."

"Its price is reasonable."

"When we first got the Quorum the licensing was different."

"The initial expenditure for us was a little under $40,000 for the recent renewal. For the first three years after that, other than electricity, there's no cost. After that, their support contract has to be renewed annually. We spent close to $6,000, between the two offices, for support."

"We have never questioned whether it is worth it because it so obviously is a great value."

"The total for our current solution's licensing is about $14,000 for 12 servers for three years."

"The upfront cost of purchasing a license for the hardware is quite steep."

"The solution’s pricing is economical."

"I am not sure how much it costs, but I know it's expensive."

"Quorum OnQ can be described as a medium-priced product...There are no ingress and egress charges in the product."