MSP360 vs Acronis for MSPs: Restore Proof First
MSP360 vs Acronis for MSPs: Restore Proof First
MSP360 vs Acronis looks like a backup software choice.
It is really a service design choice.
MSP360 leans into storage control. Acronis leans into a larger cyber protection platform. Both can protect real client workloads. Both can become margin trash if the MSP sells backup as a checkbox and forgets to price restore testing, storage growth, overages, immutability, and after-hours recovery work.
The vendor decision matters. The restore promise matters more.
Scopable belongs in this comparison because the backup platform is not the quote. The quote has to connect protected workloads, restore assumptions, storage behavior, reporting cadence, and support boundaries to something the client can approve without guessing.
What is the practical difference between MSP360 and Acronis for MSPs? MSP360 is usually the cleaner fit when an MSP wants white-label backup software and more control over storage vendors. Acronis is usually the cleaner fit when the MSP wants backup tied to disaster recovery, security, and broader service packaging. Either way, the MSP still has to prove restore.
Why this comparison matters now
MSPs do not lose money on backup because they picked the wrong logo.
They lose money because the quote was too vague.
A client hears "backup" and assumes recovery. The MSP hears "backup" and often means agent deployed, job monitored, storage billed, and restore available if nothing gets too weird. That gap is where the angry ticket starts.
The recovery gap is not theoretical. Sophos' State of Ransomware 2025 found that only 54% of organizations used backups to restore data after ransomware, the lowest rate Sophos reported in six years. If backups were always enough, that number would not look like that.
That is why MSP360 vs Acronis needs a better frame than feature bingo.
Ask these questions first:
- Who owns the storage account?
- Which workloads are protected?
- What does a successful test restore prove?
- What happens when Microsoft 365 restore is urgent?
- Who pays when storage or recovery labor exceeds the model?
- What evidence does the client see every quarter?
If those answers are missing, the comparison is not finished.
What MSP360 actually gives MSPs
MSP360's argument is control.
The MSP360 Managed Backup page describes white-label MSP backup software with remote management, multi-tenant support, reporting, alerting, and bring-your-own-storage support. The same page lists storage options including Amazon S3, Wasabi, Backblaze B2, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, IDrive e2, external drives, and network locations such as NAS devices.
That storage choice is the main reason MSP360 keeps showing up in MSP backup conversations.
It lets an MSP separate the backup software decision from the storage decision. That can be healthy when the MSP already has opinions about Wasabi, Backblaze B2, Azure, S3, local copy, or client-owned storage. It can also be dangerous when nobody owns the storage architecture and the quote just says "cloud backup included."
The MSP360 Managed Backup documentation says the service supports image-based and file-level backups, SQL Server and Exchange backups, agentless VMware and Hyper-V backups, Microsoft Office 365, and Google Workspace. It also describes remote installation, upgrades, licensing, reporting, monitoring, backup jobs, restore jobs, self-service restores, and bare-metal recovery to dissimilar hardware or cloud environments.
That is a useful MSP profile:
- You can sell under your own brand.
- You can pick the storage target.
- You can manage backup jobs from a web console.
- You can cover desktops, servers, virtual machines, Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, SQL, and Exchange.
- You can build a local plus cloud design when the client needs it.
The catch is obvious if you have ever owned a backup service.
More control means more responsibility.
If the MSP chooses the storage, the MSP also has to document retention, egress behavior, immutability setup, restore test cadence, storage alerts, and who pays when the client's data growth stops matching the quote. Storage freedom is good. Unpriced storage responsibility is not.
What Acronis actually gives MSPs
Acronis' argument is packaging.
The Acronis MSP backup page positions Cyber Protect Cloud as one platform for every workload, covering physical, virtual, cloud, and SaaS workloads. It lists file, disk, and image backup for Windows and Linux, VMware, Hyper-V, Nutanix AHV, cloud VMs, Microsoft 365, and Google Workspace. It also points to instant restore, cloud failover, anti-malware scanning of backup images, immutable storage, and reporting.
That is the appeal.
Acronis is not just trying to be backup software. It wants to be the service-provider platform where backup, disaster recovery, security, endpoint work, and reporting live close together.
The Acronis pricing page makes that packaging clear. It describes solution-based licensing, service-based licensing per workload, and service-based licensing per GB. Solution-based licensing can bundle services into one SKU per workload, with included storage pooled at the customer level. If storage use goes beyond the included pool, overages are billed separately. Acronis also says a customer tenant cannot mix solution-based and service-based licensing.
That model can make quoting easier when the service is standard.
It can also hide assumptions if the MSP does not explain the pool, the overage, the licensing model, and the tenant-level choice to the client.
Acronis has also moved toward more storage choice. The Direct Backup to Public Cloud page says service providers can back up directly to public or private S3-compatible storage, including Amazon S3, Cloudian, Backblaze B2, and Impossible Cloud, without an extra gateway. The same page mentions Object Lock support, encryption in transit and at rest, optional FIPS 140-2 validated cryptography, and more than 30 workload types.
So the old shorthand, MSP360 equals storage freedom and Acronis equals locked storage, is too lazy now.
The better split is this:
- MSP360 starts from backup software plus storage choice.
- Acronis starts from a broader service platform, with storage choice becoming part of the story.
That is a real difference. It is just not the only difference.
MSP360 vs Acronis at a glance
| Decision factor | MSP360 Managed Backup | Acronis Cyber Protect Cloud | Practical read |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSP fit | White-label backup software with remote management and reporting | Broader service-provider platform for backup, DR, security, and operations | MSP360 is easier to shape around your own stack. Acronis is easier to package as a wider service. |
| Storage model | Bring your own storage across public cloud, S3-compatible storage, local, and NAS targets | Acronis Cloud, partner-hosted, customer storage, and direct backup to S3-compatible storage | Storage choice is not exclusive to MSP360 anymore, but MSP360 still leads with it. |
| Workloads | Endpoints, Windows Server, VMware, Hyper-V, SQL Server, Exchange, Microsoft 365, Google Workspace | Physical, virtual, cloud, SaaS, Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, and 30+ workload types | Both cover common MSP workloads. Check the edge cases before quoting. |
| Microsoft 365 | MSP360 lists M365 and Google backup from $1.10 per user in its public pricing menu | Acronis says SaaS backup includes Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace, with unlimited storage on its backup page | M365 backup is less about license price and more about restore speed, permission scope, and support terms. |
| Pricing shape | Software/license plus the storage model you choose | Solution-based or service-based licensing, with storage pools or per-GB models depending on setup | MSP360 can be more transparent. Acronis can be easier to package. Both need storage growth terms. |
| Restore proof | Flexible recovery, bare-metal recovery, self-service restores, and MSP-run testing | Instant restore, disaster recovery options, cloud failover, and broader recovery tooling | Vendor capability is not proof. A signed restore test is proof. |
| Main MSP risk | Underpricing the storage architecture and support labor | Underexplaining licensing, storage pools, add-ons, and overages | The risk is not technical. It is scope drift. |
The table should not pick the vendor for you.
It should tell you what to ask before the vendor name goes into a quote.
Storage freedom still needs a restore model
Storage freedom sounds great until a client asks what happens during recovery.
MSP360's bring-your-own-storage model gives MSPs room to choose the storage vendor that fits the client. That might mean Wasabi for a steady backup set, Backblaze B2 for cleaner egress modeling, Azure for a client already living in Microsoft billing, or local storage when a fast on-site restore matters.
That freedom is useful.
It is also a place to make a mess.
If the quote does not name the storage target, retention rules, immutability mode, growth assumption, deleted-data behavior, restore testing pattern, and recovery labor boundary, then storage choice is just a nicer way to avoid writing the hard part down.
Acronis used to be easier to describe as a more packaged model. That is still mostly true, but Direct Backup to Public Cloud changes the conversation. If an MSP can point Acronis at S3-compatible storage, then the storage decision still exists. It just lives inside a larger platform discussion.
For storage-only questions, the Wasabi vs Backblaze B2 MSP backup comparison is the better read. For platform questions, keep going.
Restore proof is the part clients actually buy
Nobody buys backup because they love agents.
They buy the right to ask, "Can you get us back?"
That means MSP360 and Acronis should both be evaluated by restore proof, not just backup status.
A useful restore proof package includes:
| Proof item | What the MSP should document |
|---|---|
| Workload list | Devices, servers, VMs, SaaS data, databases, and exclusions. |
| Last successful backup | Timestamp, job status, storage target, and retention point. |
| Restore test type | File restore, mailbox restore, bare-metal restore, VM boot, or DR failover. |
| Result | Pass or fail, with what was actually restored. |
| RTO and RPO | Recovery time objective and recovery point objective the client accepts. |
| Labor boundary | Included hours, after-hours rules, emergency rates, and escalation owner. |
| Client evidence | Report, QBR note, ticket, signed acceptance, or roadmap item. |
MSP360 can support the mechanics. Acronis can support the mechanics.
Neither vendor can sign the client's acceptance for you.
That is why restore proof belongs in the service agreement and the quarterly review. If the client is paying for backup but never sees evidence, they are not buying confidence. They are buying hope with a recurring invoice.
Scopable is useful here because the proof should not live in a random ticket note. It belongs in the client assessment, the roadmap, the budget, the QBR, and the quote language. Otherwise every renewal becomes the same argument with different storage numbers.
Microsoft 365 is its own backup service
Microsoft 365 backup is where MSPs can fool themselves fastest.
The client sees Exchange, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams as one service. The restore paths are not one service. A mailbox restore, a Teams conversation, a SharePoint library, a deleted OneDrive folder, and cross-tenant migration all have different expectations.
MSP360's public pricing menu lists Microsoft 365 and Google backup from $1.10 per user. Its documentation says Managed Backup can protect Microsoft Office 365 and Google Workspace resources. That can be a strong fit when the MSP wants a lower-cost SaaS backup motion tied to its own storage and support model.
Acronis says its SaaS coverage includes Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace with unlimited storage, archiving, and cross-organization migration. That can be a strong fit when M365 backup is part of a bigger Acronis service package.
The quote should not stop at per-user price.
It should define:
- which Microsoft 365 services are protected
- retention period and retention exclusions
- restore request SLA
- who can authorize restores
- whether legal hold or eDiscovery work is included
- how tenant-to-tenant recovery is handled
- how restore tests are reported
If the client asks for "M365 backup" and your quote only says "included," you have not scoped the service.
Servers, workstations, and image backup need different promises
Endpoint backup and server backup should not share one lazy sentence.
A lost laptop restore is not the same thing as a failed line-of-business server. A file restore is not the same thing as a bare-metal restore. A VM boot test is not the same thing as a full client DR event.
MSP360's docs mention file-level backups, image-based backups, SQL Server, Exchange, VMware, Hyper-V, and bare-metal recovery to dissimilar hardware. Acronis mentions physical, virtual, cloud, and SaaS workloads, plus instant restore and disaster recovery options.
Good. That gives MSPs real options.
Now make the service names match the risk:
| Client need | Better quote language |
|---|---|
| Workstation file recovery | User file restore with defined response target and retention window. |
| Executive laptop loss | Full device recovery or replacement workflow, including identity and application setup. |
| Server image backup | Image-level backup with test restore cadence and documented boot validation. |
| Virtual machine recovery | VM restore, boot test, network validation, and application owner acceptance. |
| Database restore | Application-consistent backup, recovery point target, and DBA or vendor responsibility. |
| Full site outage | DR plan, failover owner, communication path, and after-hours billing terms. |
This is not paperwork for paperwork's sake.
It is how you avoid being judged against a recovery promise you never priced.
Immutability is a design choice, not a magic word
Every client has heard some version of immutable backup now.
That is good. It also means MSPs need to stop using the word like a spell.
MSP360 says its Managed Backup supports object lock and that backup data can be protected from deletion or modification for a defined period. Its Object Lock article says Object Lock and retention settings need to be configured for each storage destination, and that requirements depend on the backup flow.
Acronis says Direct Backup to Public Cloud supports Object Lock for S3-compatible clouds. Its backup page also references immutable storage and compliance-focused encryption options.
Those are useful capabilities.
The MSP still has to decide:
- storage target
- Object Lock mode
- retention period
- who can change retention
- how deletion requests are handled
- what happens if the client wants shorter retention later
- whether the backup application actually writes the needed retention settings
If the quote says "immutable backups" without those details, it is not a scope. It is a vibe.
And vibes do not restore payroll.
Pricing: MSP360 clarity vs Acronis packaging
MSP360 can be easier to explain when the MSP wants the software and storage math separated.
The software line is one thing. The storage line is another thing. Recovery labor is another thing. That can make margin easier to inspect because the MSP can see which part is growing.
Acronis can be easier to sell when the MSP wants packaged protection. The solution-based model can roll services into a workload SKU with included storage. The service-based model can price per workload or per GB. That is useful if the MSP has a mature service catalog.
But bundled pricing needs careful language.
Acronis says included storage is pooled at the customer level in solution-based licensing and overages are billed separately when use exceeds the pool. It also says customer tenants cannot mix solution-based and service-based licensing.
That belongs in the quote.
For either vendor, the MSP should model:
- protected workload count
- current protected data
- yearly growth
- local copy requirements
- cloud storage target
- retention policy
- immutable retention
- restore test cadence
- expected recovery labor
- after-hours incident rules
If you want broader quote language, the MSP pricing and quoting margin protection guide, MSP scope of work template, and shared responsibility matrix template are the adjacent reads.
When MSP360 is the better fit
Pick MSP360 when storage control is part of your service strategy.
Good fits:
- MSPs that already know their preferred storage vendors
- clients that need client-owned storage or specific regional storage choices
- backup offers where white-label branding matters
- teams that want backup software without buying a larger security platform
- MSPs comfortable owning the storage, retention, reporting, and restore workflow
- clients where local plus cloud backup needs explicit design
MSP360 is especially strong when the MSP wants to choose the storage layer and can prove the service layer.
The warning is simple. Do not use storage choice as a substitute for service design. If your team is not ready to own storage policy, restore testing, and reporting, MSP360 may expose that weakness faster.
That is not a product flaw.
That is an MSP operating model flaw.
When Acronis is the better fit
Pick Acronis when the backup service is part of a bigger protection offer.
Good fits:
- MSPs that want backup, DR, security, and endpoint work closer together
- clients that value packaged protection more than storage-level choice
- service catalogs built around workload SKUs or bundled packages
- teams that want cloud failover or broader recovery options in the same vendor motion
- MSPs with the discipline to explain licensing models, tenant choices, and storage overages
- clients where Microsoft 365 backup, endpoint security, and server protection are sold together
Acronis is not automatically better because it does more.
Doing more can help. It can also create a quote nobody understands.
If the client cannot tell what is included, what is extra, and what happens during a recovery month, the package is not finished.
For adjacent platform comparisons, read Datto BCDR vs Acronis Cyber Protect and Acronis vs Cove for MSPs.
What to quote before choosing either one
Before the vendor decision, write the recovery promise.
At minimum, the quote should answer:
| Quote question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What workloads are protected? | Backup scope should name devices, servers, VMs, SaaS data, and exclusions. |
| Where does backup data live? | Storage target controls cost, access, immutability, and recovery behavior. |
| What is the retention policy? | Retention changes storage math and legal expectations. |
| How often are restores tested? | Untested backup is only a theory. |
| What evidence is delivered? | Clients need proof, not dashboard screenshots nobody reads. |
| What is included during an incident? | Emergency recovery labor can eat the whole margin if it is implied. |
| Who owns vendor support? | The MSP should not discover escalation ownership during an outage. |
| What happens when data grows? | Storage growth needs a price path before the invoice changes. |
This is the difference between selling a backup tool and selling a recovery service.
The tool matters.
The promise matters more.
Bottom line
MSP360 vs Acronis is not a universal winner question.
MSP360 is usually the better fit when an MSP wants more storage control, white-label backup software, and the freedom to design the service around its own stack. Acronis is usually the better fit when the MSP wants backup inside a larger protection platform with DR, security, and packaged licensing options.
The bad option is pretending either vendor removes the need for restore proof.
Before you quote the backup service, define the storage model, test restore cadence, immutability rules, reporting evidence, and recovery labor boundary. Then pick the vendor that fits the promise you can actually keep.
If those assumptions still live in a spreadsheet, join Scopable early access. Build the backup quote once, then stop rediscovering the same restore math in every renewal.
Sources
- MSP360 Managed Backup
- MSP360 Managed Backup Service documentation
- MSP360 Managed Backup FAQ
- MSP360 Object Lock for immutable backup protection
- Acronis MSP backup
- Acronis pricing and licensing for service providers
- Acronis Direct Backup to Public Cloud
- Sophos State of Ransomware 2025
