Cohesity vs. Rubrik

Prevention and detection of malicious activity: Modern data immutability/WORM, 2FA/TOTP, VM vulnerability detection, ML-driven anomaly detection, one-click, industry-leading threat protection and data classification

WORM not customizable: Lack of flexibility to lock for different periods in archives vs. local copies, which raises costs, increases compliance risk, shortens protection, and discourages use; no VM vulnerability detection; currently uses manual YARA rules and Regex for threat hunting and data classification

Protection for in-progress backups: Adapters use closed API/RPC protocols and adapterless dump-to-NAS workflows supporting NFSv4.1 ACLs to protect from exfiltration or sabotage

Higher exposure to exfiltration or sabotage: Fewer applications supported by adapters; in-progress NFS dumps may be accessed on the network for exfiltration or sabotage

Strict access control: Quorum support for multi-person concurrence on sensitive actions

Greater risk of rogue actions: No quorum controls to prevent most unilateral admin actions, such as maliciously exporting data

Bank-grade cyber vaulting with FortKnox: Immutability of data and keys enforced by Cohesity; quorum-controlled operations, rapid restore, and time-limited network access (reducing attack surface)

Just a vendor-supplied storage bucket: Customer still responsible for managing multiple risks themselves; fewer layers of protection, doesn’t meet bank requirements or maximize restore speeds

Restore production and populate recovery sandboxes faster: Immediate and scalable restore of VMs and databases for faster forensics, sandboxing, and recovery

Slower recovery: Chain-based metadata processing requires “stitching together” of snapshots when restoring at scale

Reduced downtime: Resume NAS file sharing immediately without restore, and/or rapidly restore to primary storage

Files offline longer: Can’t immediately put file shares online; slow restore to primary

Production-grade I/O reliability: Writes never lost, near instant recovery; not interrupted by reboot or hardware failure

Risk of data loss: Risk of VM interruption or data loss due to node loss or unplanned reboot

Simple closed-loop SIEM, SOAR integration: Complete incident response within Palo Alto XSOAR, Cisco SecureX, Microsoft Sentinel, or Crowdstrike

More complex incident response: Two UIs needed; Palo Alto XSOAR and Microsoft Sentinel integration only

Speedier data reuse: Rapidly restore to get data immediately for dev/test or analytics

Slower access to data: Less scalable live mounting and restore

Data masking: Anonymize sensitive information before it leaves the backup repository

Potential PII exposure: Dev/test workflows create risk without masking

Single secure data management platform: Enable multiple use cases including file & object services, DR, and copy data management with a reduced attack surface

Just a backup: Single-purpose architecture requires additional silos for use cases beyond backup and recovery

Freedom to choose SaaS, self-managed, or both: Same GUI for SaaS, on-prem workloads, and M365; license portability between consumption models

Either/or: SaaS limited to protecting M365; separate GUI for SaaS administration and no license portability

25% more space efficient than Rubrik, including across cloud: Typical for most workloads due to superior sliding-window dedupe, Zstd compression¹

33% more space required than Cohesity: Typically due to fixed block sizes, limited dedupe across source types and less compression. No dedupe supported for flash media.²

Future proof: Mix between whitebox and your choice of a supported major h/w vendor without an expensive lock-in

Hidden costs: Mixing hardware limited to single vendor