SuperDuper vs. Carbon Copy Cloner

Which do you prefer for backup? SuperDuper or Carbon Copy Cloner? Why?

Years ago I chose SuperDuper! mainly because it seemed well-spoken of by high-profile Mac people. I bought a license and it has worked ever since.

I haven’t tried CCC in years, so don’t feel I can give a good review.

Carbon Copy Cloner here.

I don’t think there’s that much difference between these 2 applications.

The only gripe I have with CCC is that it still doesn’t support dark mode. Not a big deal since you hardly open the application window. But strange it is.

I use CCC simply because it was the first I chose and it’s never let me down. I’ve recovered about 6 times with it and all my files have been in tact, and I’ve never had a single issue in many years.

CCC because I have found it clearer to use, more polished and quicker to adapt to the system upgrades (actually switched from one to other).

I used CCC for years and always found it a nice program (as in Gruber’s recent semantic “rant”).

Recently I switched to Chronosync for the bootable clone of my main Mac (and other backup tasks too, of course).

There was some reason that I chose Super Duper over CCC years ago, but I don’t remember what it was now. Maybe CCC wouldn’t make incremental backups at the time or something.

I mostly rely on Time Machine and Chronosync now. I’ve used Super Duper a couple of times in the last few years, just because it is simple to use.

CCC for me — I really like the power of the application, implemented in an easy-to-understand way. They update the app regularly, too!

I happen to buy CCC first. I think a review years ago weighed my decision that way. Since then I learned the developer is an x-Apple employee and what I’ve come to appreciate is his liberal licensing; buy one copy and run on all your devices. I have happily paid the upgrade price when new versions come out and I also purchased a license for my son’s laptop. I feel the developer is very fair and we have tried to equally be fair in supporting him. Don’t consider any of my comments a negative against SuperDuper, I just have never tired it and am unfamiliar with it. Both apps seem to have excellent reputations.

I started with SuperDuper! but switched to CCC a few years ago. The basic functionality is fine on both of them but the interface on CCC is clearer and more intuitive to me, it seems to update for new OSes more quickly, and the documentation for CCC was much better and more up to date the last time that I compared them.

CCC also has an optional “SafetyNet” feature that uses extra space on the destination drive to keep files that would otherwise be overwritten/deleted by the cloning. I’ve never had dig into it for old files but I like knowing that they’re there - especially given how unreliable Time Machine is in some configurations.

SuperDuper! is a bit cheaper (which may be why I got it in the first place) but I think that CCC is worth the modest additional cost.

1 Like

Is there any real difference? I’m going to finally get an external drive big enough to make bootable clones and can’t ever figure out if there is a difference between the two.

I have a license for both … but at some point way back when CCC was handling bootable backups better than SuperDuper, in some specific odd use case, so I just migrated to CCC.

If I can remember what it was, I’ll edit this; but I’ll add SuperDuper has been over the years terrific and dependable. I feel people should have one or the other.

Years ago I tried both and ended up on CCC but don’t remember why. Been using it for years and completely satisfied. It has saved my butt on 2 occasions. One was a failed OS upgrade and the other was when my MBP GPU died. Clone ran at 3am and it was dead when I tried to use it the next day. Booted the clone drive on my wife’s old iMac and back up and running in a short time.

CCC for me, no issues for around 10 years I’d say. I have some tasks that run when I plug in the drive and others that run on schedule every night. If they fail I get an email.

CCC for me, I know I tried both years ago, can’t remember why I stuck with CCC. I know it’s never failed me and support and updates have been frequent and useful. I also like the ability to run on any device no matter how many I have.

Either one is probably fine as long as you use them.

I have used SuperDuper (payed version) for many years, but I recently switched to CCC (payed version)
2 main reasons:

    • SD can not clone exFAT disks and CCC can. (I switched from MacJournaled to exFAT , since I recently also use a windows PC)
      2.- CCC has the ‘safety net’ function which backups files on the destination disk in a seperate folder, that preserves files that are otherwise deleted from the destination when cloning the source.

Other than that SD is a great program, that is simpler and more straightforward and that to me SEEMS to be a bit faster than CCC.

Superduper since June 2016 - recommended on MacPowerUsers. No reason to switch. Only restored twice since and it worked like a charm.

@memex and @rcannonp, are you still using ChronoSync over CCC and SuperDuper?

I like SuperDuper for bootable clones and haven’t used ChronoSync for that yet.

Still using ChronoSync but having some problems on the bootable clone that I have not had time to troubleshoot yet. Might go back to CCC if the solution isn’t quick and simple.


Same. I don’t remember the reason, but I tried both a long, long time ago and stuck with SuperDuper because of a feature. Still have it running every night. The interface doesn’t bother me because I almost never see it.