We performed a comparison between NetApp AltaVault 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's so easy to work with."
"The most valuable feature is the portability of large archived data. You're able to put things on large on-prem, low-cost storage and then augment that with even lower cost storage in the cloud."
"The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is easy to use and integrate with whichever operating systems you use, providing you with a complete view, especially when you plan to migrate to some other operating system."
"Most importantly is having that island into that datacenter, and being able to address things in the same console. Thus, it is irrelevant where it's stored."
"You can store backups for a while."
"The solution is very easy to use and it offers great support."
"Being able to move data seamlessly from one-premise to the cloud (Azure). It works great. The backup solution is perfect for us."
"The flexibility. Being able to virtualize it, port it wherever I like, test my backups, test my DR capabilities whenever I like without impacting anybody."
"The most valuable feature is the disaster recovery process from the data center."
"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."
"Probably the point-in-time recovery is most valuable. The other piece that is really nice is that you can mount a whole server at any point in time. So, you can mount the server with all the drives to a Z drive or something like that. It will just mount it all up, and your data is accessible right there on one drive, which is nice."
"The solution's most valuable aspect is its ability to back up a physical server to another physical or virtual server."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"What could be helpful is different user base authentication so then maybe we could allow different customers to point to a single appliance and they only see the backups and things that they have."
"NetApp's own competing products complicate things."
"The initial setup phase of the tool was difficult."
"I really want to partner it with the SnapCenter. We haven't implemented that yet. We're upgrading all of our stuff to the ONTAP 9, which you had to have."
"The solution needs faster indexing."
"More capacity with the basic model of the AltaVault would probably help out."
"It's a good product, but it's becoming outdated and moving to their other primary architecture."
"It would be nice if the solution was more complete. Many customers are looking for a single solution or silo that they can manage everything from. It would be nice, instead of having different products, if everything a client needed was in one solution."
"In terms of what needs improvement in Quest Rapid Recovery, though the solution is seamless, right now, they are just giving the software which means we'll need to arrange the hardware. If they can combine the appliance and software, that would be a great approach. In the next release of Quest Rapid Recovery, it would be great if they'd add a folder backup feature because only a snapshot backup feature is available at the moment."
"It is quite surprising to me that the configuration cannot be backed up automatically, and I think that Rapid Recovery should have an option for scheduled configuration backup."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
NetApp AltaVault is ranked 54th in Backup and Recovery with 17 reviews while Quest Rapid Recovery is ranked 26th in Backup and Recovery with 18 reviews. NetApp AltaVault is rated 7.8, while Quest Rapid Recovery is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of NetApp AltaVault writes "Though the solution's configuration phase can be difficult, the tool offers stability and scalability". 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". NetApp AltaVault is most compared with Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup, Veeam Backup & Replication, AWS Storage Gateway and Rubrik, whereas Quest Rapid Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Quest NetVault, Azure Backup, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and Rubrik. See our NetApp AltaVault 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.
