No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

OpenText Recover​ vs Quorum OnQ comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 29, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText Recover​
Ranking in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software
36th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Quorum OnQ
Ranking in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software
24th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Backup and Recovery (49th), Cloud Backup (40th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2026, in the Disaster Recovery (DR) Software category, the mindshare of OpenText Recover​ is 0.8%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Quorum OnQ is 1.8%, up from 1.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Disaster Recovery (DR) Software Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Quorum OnQ1.8%
OpenText Recover​0.8%
Other97.4%
Disaster Recovery (DR) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Rias Majeed - PeerSpot reviewer
CTO at Exceed NetSec LLC
Allows you to test and schedule recovery tasks for multiple sites
The main weakness of Carbonite Recover is the fallback process, which can be time-consuming. However, the failover process works well when done properly. Similar to other software programs, there was a technical issue involving duplicates and small glitches. Over time, Carbonite recovery has improved. When I started working with Cyber, we had to double-check everything, and although it was challenging, the downtime wasn't extensive—one incident in a year, for example. Restoring data with Carbonite Recover can take time, mainly because the backup process occurs in real time. The main concern is the duration needed to restore data to the primary environment, which can be lengthy. However, once the failover is complete, there are no further issues.
reviewer2594778 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Application Analyst at a non-profit with 5,001-10,000 employees
Enhanced filtering for advocate emails
Quorum provides an elevated ability to filter on everything from people's location to age to their voting history. This is an extreme feature that will help our advocacy department a lot. It encompasses the ability to formulate emails and calls to action across regions. Their platform is more advanced than our previous one. It provides a smooth training experience and easy terminology for those in the advocacy world.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We confirm the server failure before initiating recovery. Once started, this process takes half an hour to an hour, though it can be as fast as 15 minutes. After bringing up the server, we test connectivity to ensure everything is operational."
"I sleep better knowing that Quorum is there."
"The most valuable feature is spinning up a ready-to-go VM in a test or production environment that is based on a backup stored on the Quorum device."
"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 ease of recovering from data loss is huge, as well as the peace of mind, knowing that if something does happen, I can have a replacement running in a matter of minutes."
"Having the ability to reduce recovery time, for critical resources, from multiple hours to a matter of minutes, is huge."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"The main weakness of Carbonite Recover is the fallback process, which can be time-consuming. However, the failover process works well when done properly. Similar to other software programs, there was a technical issue involving duplicates and small glitches."
"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."
"Quorum OnQ's user interface is not very attractive and should be made more attractive."
"It is not as feature-rich as a product like Veeam."
"The price of Quorum OnQ could be improved."
"One of the complaints from our customers is that the Quorum is expensive, and they question why it is on par with these other products."
"It would be beneficial if file culling could be more granular."
"The more basic versions do not scale."
"The solution could do more by improving compatibility in terms of supporting other OS."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Quorum OnQ can be described as a medium-priced product...There are no ingress and egress charges in the product."
"When we quote the price of Quorum to customers, they find it expensive."
"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."
"The solution’s pricing is economical."
"The upfront cost of purchasing a license for the hardware is quite steep."
"The total for our current solution's licensing is about $14,000 for 12 servers for three years."
"The cost is higher than other software and services, but it is an absolute must-have."
"The pricing is about $1,400 a month. It's a little bit on the higher side. But it's one of those situations where time is valuable for me. So if it costs a little bit more money for me to have a solution that just works and requires less of my day-to-day management, I'm willing to pay a little bit more."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions are best for your needs.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Construction Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Outsourcing Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business19
Large Enterprise4
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Quorum OnQ?
It's a little expensive. That said, the cost aligns with other advocacy tools we have evaluated.
What needs improvement with Quorum OnQ?
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 wit...
What is your primary use case for Quorum OnQ?
We launched all of our advocacy departments through Quorum next month. We are in the process of uploading all of our data and creating custom fields.
 

Also Known As

No data available
OnQ
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
LCL Bulk Transport
Find out what your peers are saying about Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Veeam Software, Broadcom and others in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software. Updated: September 2026.
913,806 professionals have used our research since 2012.