[Mister_Snuggles]

Does anyone have an up-to-date comparison of Borg vs Restic? Or a compelling reason to switch from Restic to Borg?

I've previously used Borg, but the inability to use anything other than local files or ssh as a backend became a problem for me. I switched to Restic around the time it gained compression support. So for my use-case of backing up various servers to an S3-compatible storage provider, Restic and Borg now seem to be equivalent.

Obviously I don't want to fix what isn't broken, but I'd also like to know what I'm missing out on by using Restic instead of Borg.

[ectospheno]

I prefer restic simply because I find it easier to understand and use. This means backups actually happen. It also feels less like it is constantly changing. Constant stream of new features isn’t a thing I’ve ever desired in a backup solution.

[kornnflake]

+1, I'm in a similar situation and be curious too about an up-to-date comparison.

[ThomasWaldmann]

Comparisons might be interesting, but one needs to be aware that they would be a bit apples to oranges:

- unreleased code that is still in heavy development (borg2, especially the new repository code inside borg2).

- released code (restic) that has practically proven "cloud support" since quite a while.

borg2 is using rclone for the cloud backend, so that part is at least quite proven, but the layers above that in borg2 are all quite fresh and not much optimized / debugged yet.