Hasleo Backup Suite V5.2 Released!

[Dude Guyman]

Has anyone done a performance comparison between Macrium Reflect X and Hasleo Backup Suite? Fair and objective testing of backup, restore and even cloning features.

A little. Nothing scientific, just me doing backups and restore way too often. No cloning but assume it would be similar. I'll post my thoughts on it (from my experience, results may vary). I keep small OS installs compared to most people so not a very long runtime to test, and these are not single "benchmarks" just numbers I've seen, sort of averaged over many, many backup/restores. Sorry if this gets long winded, but there are a lot of variables to include.

Source partitions:
Windows partition is always ~14 GB.
Linux partition is ~9 GB.

All the following using High Compression, from NVME gen 3x4 (OS) disks, imaged to/restored from a 1 TB SATA Crucial MX500 SSD (storage) disk. If it was NVME both ways, I imagine it would be even faster, and much slower to or from a spinning disk HDD.

TLDR: Hasleo is ~equal to Reflect X in speed and result, better/faster than Reflect 8.x. Hasleo is shaping up very nicely. So far performance and reliability have been right up there with Reflect, which was always very good, until the new subscription pricing. Hasleo is on track to be the new king of backup imaging! I am very pleased with it.

1. First, Reflect X fumbles MBR disks when restored to a blank disk (Delta over existing OS restores work fine) and restores all data (when viewed from Linux), but boots to a blue screen about "no boot files".
Reflect 8.x did fine, and HBS does fine.

2. Reflect X and HBS backup and restore speeds are about the same. Crazy fast Delta Restores over existing OS. 12-30 seconds depending how much changed since imaging.
Maybe 1 minute to a cleaned/blank NTFS disk, 2-3 minutes to Linux EXT4 cleaned/blank disk (much longer to a blank Linux HDD, like 15-20 minutes).

3. Imaging NTFS takes ~26 seconds to 1 minute on both (Very good! Faster than Windows can straight up copy the resulting files from one drive to another).
Linux EXT4 always takes longer at 1 - 1.5 minutes. Differences in speed between Reflect X and HBS vary enough from time to time and are too small to notice.
Both are a little faster than Reflect 8 was and result in smaller images.

4. Resulting image file sizes are about the same on NTFS, but Linux EXT4 HBS sometimes makes a larger image, sometimes smaller image than Reflect X. I don't understand why, maybe to do with if I have run TRIM recently because it's doing byte for byte on ETX4 and not discarding deleted data?

EXT4 + Reflect X = ~2.2 GB image file.
EXT4 + HBS = 1.7 GB to 3.1 GB image file, but even the 3.1 GB file is very good (1/3 of source).
NTFS + HBS & Reflect X = ~6.8 GB image file. Reflect 8.x was ~7.5+ GB.