HYCU vs. Quorum onQ

The SQL database structure and application-consistent snapshots to local storage and recovery are very well done. The interface is nicely made and it is an intuitive design that needs very little training to use. The Restore from the Cloud function is cumbersome and slow, that could be improved by downloading and finding parts needed, instead of the entire backup media.

Incentivized

• Backup of virtual machines.
• Upload to Cloud backups.
• Recovery of databases backed up through HYCU.

Incentivized

• The rollout of the file level backup is still not there.
• The Restore from the Cloud function is not ideal and needs lots of work.
• Backups being in native format would be nice for certain files.

Incentivized

I have had several requests, and issues with the rollout and deployment of HYCU in our production environment. The HYCU team of support and developers have met each issue with importance and some kind of resolution or explanation of help. They have been so supportive even in the not so easy ones. That says something for their product and team behind it.

Incentivized

I have used several backup programs, I selected 2 just to be brief. The best thing I see with HYCU over Veeam is that it is much more difficult for an attacker if inside the network to gain access to the backups and objects saved in the backup storage. The best part about HYCU over Bacula is that it is much easier to use and more stable. The interface alone will save you from time and energy using other products

Incentivized

• We have saved a few SQL issues and recovered data that could have been corrupted.
• Applications and files have a place in the cloud in case the need is there for other depts.
• Restoring across datacenters is possible with HYCU saving us time and money to do so.

Incentivized