Which one... CCC, Chrono, SuperDuper?

I was looking for an onsite backup solution other than Time Machine that I can use to back up my MacBook… I use Backblaze for my offsite, but was wondering if there was a fave amongst CCC, Chronosync, and/or SuperDuper

1 Like

I’ve used CCC for years, in addition to Time Machine and Backblaze, and I’ve had no issues.


+1 for CCC. The task of backing up has gotten very much more complicated with the arrival of APFS, sealed volumes, and M1 hardware these past few years, but Mike Bombich has kept up. :slightly_smiling_face:


+1 for CCC. It works pretty much out of the box. ChronoSync exposes a more sophisticated set of configuration options, and can seem fiddly. CCC and ChronoSync both have top notch developer support. I’ve never used SuperDuper, though it has a strong user community and a good reputation. I don’t think anyone would go wrong using any of the three choices.

1 Like

I’ll add another +1 for CCC.

One thing worth noting is that CCC and SuperDuper occupy pretty much the same niche. They’re backup utilities, first and foremost. ChronoSync will do those things, but it’s feature set is a bit more extensive when in comes to things like bidirectional syncing of changes (as opposed to one-way backups) and backing up over the network. The flip side is that I don’t think it does the straight backup tasks quite as well. There’s enough daylight there that I use both CCC and ChronoSync.


CCC and SuperDuper! are pretty much the same. I went with SuperDuper! years ago because at the time it was a paid app and CCC was free and I wanted the better assurance of support in the future.

I also use ChronoSync, originally for syncing two Macs but now for backing up Macs to the server Mac which backs up to the Backblaze cloud. These days, for syncing I use ResilioSync which is basically a way to create a private (and free) cloud syncing service.

1 Like

I don’t think you can go wrong with either Carbon Copy Cloner or SuperDuper. Both get a lot of praise.

CCC has worked really well for me and it seemed to be the favourite when I compared the two last year. CCC has a 30-day trial so you might consider taking both for a spin.


I have been using SuperDuper for more than 5 years and no issues. I have restored SuperDuper backup many times and so far so good.

I recall when I was making this choice, I went for SuperDuper because it was cheaper and the developer is great. Unlike CCC, SuperDuper does not charge upgrade pricing. CCC appears to have a new version very 12-18 months which the user needs to pay for. Happy to be corrected.

1 Like

I’ve used all three. Having a bootable backup was the main reason to use SuperDuper and CCC. When that became impossible to do with Big Sur I switched back to Chronosync (which I use for more than backups). Prior to CS I used rsync for years and Chronosync saves me having to write and automate my own scripts.

Having a backup solution that may require the developer to find a workaround every time Apple decides to crank down security just doesn’t appeal to me.

Years ago I tried bout CCC and SuperDuper and preferred CCC for now forgotten reasons. Been happy with CCC all those years.

1 Like

+whatever for CCC Been using it for years


you can’t fault either CCC or Superduper. I have used both without problems, but stuck with CCC as I saw it more actively supported and updated and I like the user interface.


I have used all 3, and it’s good to note that this is one area of software purchasing in which you cannot make a mistake! All three are excellent products.

Personally I have settled on CCC because it has the right mix of ease of use and available complexity. YMMV depending on the backup / cloning setup that works for you.

I’m basically just looking to keep my external drive with all my data (connected to my iMac) backup up to my Synology system (onsite). Have Chronosync but maybe CCC would be easier to use. Just need something simple that works. Thanks.

Chronosync’s claim to fame is really bidirectional syncing. Since you already have it it can certainly be used for backups and it has a template for performing backups. Starting from scratch, using either CCC or SuperDuper is simpler for just backups.


You left out ARQ? It’s a contender too.

I have and use both SuperDuper and Chronosync.

SuperDuper does a daily backup of my startup drive.

Chronosync does a daily backup of my images drive, (I’m a hobbyist Photographer).

I found both simple enough to setup rules and schedules to do what I want. And truth be told my needs would be met with either. It is lost in the depths of time why I have both. But since it ain’t broke …

I’ve not used Carbon Copy Cloner nor ARQ. I’ sure either would work as well.

All that said, since you have Chronosync, I suggest giving it a try.

I also have Time Machine running, and while others have had mixed results with it, I’ve not had any problems. And finally I use Back blaze for offsite backups.

And I’ve had to use all of them to recover files at one time or another.


My objection to Arq was that it required you to use Arq to restore files. With CCC I can use Finder to restore files. Same issue with Time Machine. I maintain 2 CCC backups, 1 TM, and 1 BackBlaze.

Understandable. I use Arq for my cloud backups, but not for my unencrypted local backups.

Thanks! Meant to type ‘backed up’. I’ll give it a shot. Chronosync seems to be strange and doesn’t always complete for me but I’m sure it’s something I have set up wrong. CCC probably easier to get done since it’s a one way transfer.