Cloud Infrastructure • In-Depth Review

Duplicati Review 2026

Duplicati, backup and object storage for keeping copies of data off the machine that made it

★★★★½4.9/5(Noizz editorial review)🔎Privacy review pending

14-day free trial

Start your 14-day free trial →

Free for 14 days, then $15.99/mo. Cancel anytime.

SeekerPro · $15.99/mo after the trial

30-day money-back guarantee · cancel anytime

Shown as SeekerPro at checkout

Unlock every privacy audit with SeekerPro

14-day trial. Compare any two tools on privacy, transparency and user rights.

ByPablo Diaz· Founder & CEO, Noizz·Reviewed by the Noizz Editorial team

How we made this: This review reflects the Noizz Editorial team's hands-on evaluation of Duplicati against its public documentation, pricing, and feature set, and how it compares with category alternatives. The rating is editorial.

Key Takeaways

Duplicati, backup and object storage for keeping copies of data off the machine that made it

Duplicati earns a 4.9/5 Noizz editorial rating in the Cloud Infrastructure category.
4 pros and 3 cons are assessed.
Category: Cloud Infrastructure.

28,697 brands profiled and analyzed

12,000+ brand views this week

✓ updated daily with fresh data

Considering Duplicati? See how it compares

Real community ratings, honest pros & cons, and alternatives, all in one place.

28,000+ tools reviewed · Trusted by founders worldwide

Start free: compare tools, track privacy Lock in $9.99/mo for life

Or try SeekerPro free for 14 days

✓ Free forever plan✓ 14-day free trial✓ Cancel anytime

4.9/5

Overall Rating

✓

Noizz Editorial

Pros & Cons

👍 What We Love

✓ Copies held away from the source system
✓ Cheaper per terabyte than primary storage
✓ Versioning and retention rules
✓ Restore tested through standard tooling

👎 Room for Improvement

✗ Restores cost time and sometimes egress fees
✗ An untested backup is not a backup
✗ Retention settings quietly drive the bill

176+ brands rated

Explore all alternatives

Noizz tracks 28,697 brands with real reviews, ratings, and comparison tools.

Browse alternatives

👤 Who Is Duplicati For?

Duplicati fits teams and individuals who need recoverable copies rather than a second live system. The questions worth answering before you commit are restores cost time and sometimes egress fees and an untested backup is not a backup.

🏆 Our Verdict

Duplicati earns a 4.9/5 Noizz editorial rating. It covers backup and object storage for keeping copies of data off the machine that made it, which is the part worth judging it on: copies held away from the source system, and cheaper per terabyte than primary storage. The trade-off to weigh is restores cost time and sometimes egress fees. It is a fit for teams and individuals who need recoverable copies rather than a second live system, and a poor fit for anyone whose requirement sits outside that shape.

Duplicati is a free, open-source backup application that runs on Windows, macOS, and Linux, built to push encrypted, incremental backups to an unusually wide range of storage destinations rather than locking users into one vendor's cloud. Its core differentiator is a block-based, deduplicated backup engine paired with client-side encryption, meaning the storage provider on the other end never sees anything but ciphertext, whether that provider is a commodity object-storage service, a home NAS, or a plain FTP server. It is configured and monitored through a local web interface rather than a hosted dashboard, which keeps the whole operation self-contained on the machine being backed up. As a community-maintained project rather than a commercial product, it trades a vendor support contract for zero licensing cost and a backend-agnostic architecture few paid tools match.

How the backup engine actually moves your data

Duplicati does not simply copy files on a schedule. It scans the source folders, splits file contents into fixed-size blocks, and only uploads blocks that have changed since the last run, which is what lets it call each pass 'incremental' even on very large data sets. Those blocks are packed into archive volumes, encrypted locally (Duplicati supports AES-256 as well as handing the job off to GPG for users who want their own keyring), and only then transferred to the configured destination, so the plaintext never leaves the source machine.

The destination side is handled through a modular backend layer, which is why the same backup job can target a local or network drive, an SFTP or WebDAV server, or a cloud object-storage bucket from one of several providers, all configured through the same web UI. A built-in scheduler runs jobs unattended and a retention policy engine thins out older backup versions over time (keeping, for example, more recent snapshots and fewer old ones) so storage use does not grow without bound. Restores work by browsing the backup as a point-in-time file tree and pulling back either individual files or the whole set, with the local job database used to resolve which blocks need to be reassembled.

Who this actually suits, and who it does not

It fits people comfortable configuring their own infrastructure: home users and self-hosters who want encrypted backups to a cloud bucket or a remote server without paying a subscription, small-office admins running a handful of machines, and anyone who specifically needs a backup destination that mainstream commercial tools do not support out of the box. Because the backend list is so broad, it is also a common choice for people who have already committed to a particular object-storage provider for cost reasons and want a backup client that will simply point at it.

It is a poor fit for organizations that need a vendor on the other end of a support ticket, a guaranteed recovery time, or centralized fleet-wide monitoring across many endpoints from one console. There is no commercial edition or paid support tier behind the project, so troubleshooting a stuck job or a corrupted database means working through community forums and GitHub issues rather than calling a vendor, which is a real cost for teams under compliance or uptime pressure even though the software itself costs nothing.

The trade-off nobody should skip past

Duplicati's stable release channel carried a beta label for a very long stretch of the project's life, and that history is not just a branding footnote: the most persistent real-world complaints are about the local SQLite database that tracks block and file state getting out of sync or corrupted, sometimes after an interrupted run or an unexpected shutdown, which then requires a repair or full rebuild before backups or restores work again. On large backup sets that rebuild, and even routine index verification, can be slow and resource-intensive on the source machine, which is the opposite of what you want from something meant to run quietly in the background.

The practical risk is not that the software fails to back data up day to day, it generally does that reliably, but that the one moment it has to prove itself, an actual restore during a crisis, can be complicated by a database problem you did not know you had. There is also no built-in verification that automatically restores a sample file after every job to confirm the chain is intact end to end, so that discipline has to be imposed by the person running it. This is the honest cost of a free, community-run tool: you gain flexibility and zero licensing spend, and you take on the operational burden a paid product would otherwise absorb for you.

Adopting it without getting burned

Start with a small, low-stakes folder as the first job rather than pointing it at an entire drive on day one, and deliberately run a full restore of that test set to a different location before trusting it with anything that matters. Treat the destination choice and the encryption passphrase as the two decisions to get right immediately: write the passphrase down somewhere durable and separate from the machine being backed up, because a lost passphrase makes an otherwise perfectly intact backup unrecoverable, encryption with no key is simply data loss with extra steps.

Once a job is running, schedule periodic real restores as an ongoing habit rather than a one-time check, since a backup you have never restored from is a backup you have only assumed works. Keep an eye on the local job database's health and back up that database file itself, or the metadata used to reassemble your blocks becomes a single point of failure. And treat Duplicati as one leg of a proper 3-2-1 backup approach rather than the sole copy of anything irreplaceable, since no single tool, free or paid, should be the only thing standing between you and lost data.

Explore Duplicati alternatives and comparisons

Find the best cloud infrastructure tools for your team, powered by real reviews.

28,000+ brands launched · Trusted by founders worldwide

Compare Tools Now Lock in $9.99/mo for life

Or try SeekerPro free for 14 days

✓ Free forever plan✓ 14-day free trial✓ Cancel anytime

Get the best cloud infrastructure tool reviews delivered weekly

Weekly privacy tool updates, independent reviews, no spam, cancel anytime.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Duplicati worth it in 2026?

Duplicati earned a 4.9/5 Noizz editorial rating based on hands-on analysis. Copies held away from the source system is frequently cited as a top benefit. It's a strong choice for cloud infrastructure needs, especially at its price point.

What are the main pros and cons of Duplicati?

Key pros: copies held away from the source system, cheaper per terabyte than primary storage. Key cons: restores cost time and sometimes egress fees, an untested backup is not a backup. Read our full review above for details.

What are the best Duplicati alternatives?

The closest alternatives to Duplicati are Backblaze, Wasabi and Rsync, they solve the same job, so compare them on the specifics rather than on the category. Each one has its own review on Noizz.io, and the alternatives page puts them side by side.