We performed a comparison between NAKIVO Backup & Replication and Quorum OnQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The automatic backup and replication features are invaluable, saving us time and resources by automating routine backup tasks and ensuring data protection without manual intervention."
"They reply immediately to any query raised from us as a technician or consultant and they know the pulse of the market and keep updating the features in such a big way."
"It is fast, simple, powerful, and has a price without competition."
"Nakivo makes our backs-ups more reliable and easy to recover in case of full damage or partial retrieval of files - all at a convenient cost."
"The product is good for protecting very low-budget offices, whereas other solutions fail in terms of cost and footprint of the VMs involved."
"This product has a very clean and intuitive GUI."
"It is easy to set up using the included virtual appliance and also includes agents for most NAS systems."
"Backups are working smoothly with Nakivo Backup."
"When it comes to recovering what you need from a backup, it's really easy. You just drill through the directory, find the file and the date that you want, and click to recover. You then pick the directory you want to save it in. Usually, it takes a minute or two and it's done. It's quick and easy."
"I like this product because it is easy to use."
"The solution is very cost effective."
"It does automated tests to the systems to make sure that you could spin them up if you needed to. And if something doesn't come back up in those tests, we get a notification saying the system didn't come back up."
"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."
"A very high level security environment for secondary data."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features was the usability, since many of the features were very straightforward. The backup and restoration process was also very fast. Although we weren't able to fully test the scenarios, one of the features was that we could have it restored on a remote site. However, since we were on-prem, we weren't able to test the remote site restoration."
"Updating VM Tools on a replicated VM could be better."
"For us, it would be best to improve the speed of the backup instead of adding new features."
"While the solution provides mostly what we need, it would be ideal if there were some additional feature capabilities for the API."
"It would be a good thing to have some use case and architecture examples online to understand integration in complex infrastructure."
"I would like to have the option of creating a subfolder per job in the backup repository because we had an issue where some files were corrupted and we lost the backup of the majority of the VMs."
"I need no more valuable features for backs-up. I have not yet tried the latest release, however, I have all the features that I need."
"Compression and data deduplication are okay, but they could be improved."
"From an administrator usage perspective, the interface is very intuitive, but maybe the wizard for creating and modifying backup jobs could look a little fancier."
"I don't love the scheduler, as I think that interface could use an overhaul."
"I would really like it if they followed comparable products from other vendors and had an option where you could offload to tape. I know it sounds incredibly antiquated, but the benefit I see is that there would be a better air gap than you have with backing up to an online source."
"Quorum OnQ can be improved by providing support for other operating systems like Ubuntu."
"The price of Quorum OnQ could be improved. We were exploring the product in terms of having a partnership with the distributor so that we could operate as a service, but for our own use, within the company, we couldn't justify the price unless the servers would become an option later on. The upfront cost of purchasing a license for the hardware is quite steep."
"Better integration with cloud-based solutions like Azure and Office 365 is needed."
"They need integration with other platforms."
"The cost could be reduced."
"Lacks compatibility in terms of supporting other OS."
NAKIVO Backup & Replication is ranked 5th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 84 reviews while Quorum OnQ is ranked 22nd in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 21 reviews. NAKIVO Backup & Replication is rated 9.4, while Quorum OnQ is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of NAKIVO Backup & Replication writes "Good deduplication, easy to configure, and offers a free version". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Quorum OnQ writes "Took us just hours to do a complete server restore, with minimal downtime". NAKIVO Backup & Replication is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Hornetsecurity Altaro VM Backup, Acronis Cyber Protect, Rubrik 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 NAKIVO Backup & Replication vs. Quorum OnQ report.
See our list of best Disaster Recovery (DR) Software vendors and best Backup and Recovery vendors.
We monitor all Disaster Recovery (DR) Software 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.
