Evidence comparison
Acronis and Arcserve: what the public record shows about each
Both products turn up on backup and recovery shortlists, so this page puts their two evidence records next to each other: 102 items on Acronis and 35 on Arcserve, each one linked to the source it came from. It does not name a winner, and the section below explains why the numbers cannot be subtracted from one another.
Read the counts correctly
More advisories does not mean less secure. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed. A product deployed in thousands of organisations with a mature disclosure process accumulates far more entries than a product nobody audits. A low count can mean a small install base, a young product or a vendor that publishes little, and a high count often marks the opposite.
The two counts are not measured with equal precision. An advisory is only listed against a vendor when the register ties it to one of its products by name, and vendors differ enormously in how consistently their products are named. Here that gap is 1 unattributable entries for Acronis against 24 for Arcserve, which moves the advisory row far more than the products do. Both numbers are in the table so the difference is visible rather than hidden.
Treat this page as two records shown together, never as one score minus another.
The two records side by side
| Measure | Acronis | Arcserve |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence items in the recordSize of the record, not a quality signal. | 102 | 35 |
| Kinds of source | 6 | 4 |
| Advisories attributed to the vendor's productsCounts scrutiny and deployment breadth. See the caution above. | 54 | 4 |
| Register entries that could not be attributedEntries naming the vendor that could not be tied to one of its products, so they are excluded from the row above. Read the two rows together: where this number is high, the registers describe that vendor's products less consistently, and the advisory count above says more about naming than about the product. | 1 | 24 |
| Of those, in the CISA known-exploited catalogueExploitation observed in the wild. The one count worth reading closely. | 1 | 1 |
| Share from government registers | 54% | 83% |
| Share the vendor cannot edit | 60% | 100% |
| Public practitioner threadsReflects community size as much as product behaviour. | 2 | 0 |
| Most recent entry | Jul 24, 2026 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| Sources last re-queried | Jul 24, 2026 | Jul 17, 2026 |
Where each record comes from
The registers and platforms behind each column, with the body that operates each one. A record resting on government registers carries different weight from one resting on the vendor's own documentation, which is why this is shown per vendor rather than merged.
Acronis
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 29 | Jun 03, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 25 | Apr 30, 2026 |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue | CISA, United States | Authoritative | 1 | Jul 29, 2024 |
| Engineering discussions | Hacker News, public threads | Independent | 3 | Aug 20, 2025 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 3 | Jul 17, 2026 |
| The vendor's own documentation | Vendor website, indexed by nexalign | Vendor-controlled | 41 | Jul 24, 2026 |
Arcserve
| Source | Operated by | Classification | Items | Latest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Vulnerability Database | ENISA, European Union | Authoritative | 25 | Apr 16, 2026 |
| CERT-Bund security advisories | BSI, Federal Republic of Germany | Authoritative | 3 | Aug 29, 2025 |
| Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue | CISA, United States | Authoritative | 1 | Mar 25, 2022 |
| Analyst, review and reference sources | Recognised analysts, review marketplaces and technology press | Independent | 6 | Jul 17, 2026 |
Documented vulnerabilities
Only entries tied to a product of the named vendor by a structural signal are listed: an advisory reference on the vendor's own domain, the vendor as the assigning authority, or the affected product list naming it. Entries that merely mention a vendor in passing are excluded from both columns.
Acronis
- CVE-2023-45249criticalKnown exploitedJul 29, 2024
Acronis Cyber Infrastructure (ACI) Insecure Default Password Vulnerability
- CVE-2026-44682highCVSS 7.3Jun 03, 2026
Local privilege escalation due to DLL hijacking vulnerability.
- CVE-2026-42061highCVSS 7.3Jun 03, 2026
Local privilege escalation due to excessive permissions assigned to child processes.
- CVE-2026-50033highCVSS 7.3Jun 03, 2026
Local privilege escalation due to DLL hijacking vulnerability.
- CVE-2026-44609highCVSS 7.3Jun 03, 2026
Local privilege escalation due to EXE hijacking vulnerability.
- WID-SEC-2026-1322highCVSS 9.9Apr 30, 2026
Affected products: Acronis Cyber Protect
Arcserve
- CVE-2015-4068criticalCVSS 9.1Known exploitedMar 25, 2022
Arcserve Unified Data Protection (UDP) Directory Traversal Vulnerability
- WID-SEC-2025-1881highCVSS 8.1Aug 29, 2025
Affected products: Arcserve Unified Data Protection
- WID-SEC-2024-0635highCVSS 9.8Nov 25, 2024
Affected products: Arcserve Unified Data Protection
- WID-SEC-2023-3031highCVSS 9.8Dec 01, 2023
Affected products: Arcserve Unified Data Protection
What practitioners report
Public threads naming each product in their own title. Not curated for sentiment, and not counted as a verdict: a loud thread is one team's experience, not a measurement.
Acronis
- Hacker NewsAug 20, 2025Independent
Acronis True Image costs performance when not used
- Hacker NewsMay 26, 2025Independent
Acronis True Image Costs Performance When Not Used
Arcserve
What neither record can tell you
The two lists below are the honest holes in each record. Everything a choice between these two actually turns on sits outside both of them.
Acronis
- A further 1 register entries mention Acronis without naming a product of Acronis as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- Most of what this record contains about capabilities comes from Acronis itself. Treat those statements as claims until an independent source confirms them.
- Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
- Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Arcserve
- A further 24 register entries mention Arcserve without naming a product of Arcserve as affected. They are excluded rather than counted as vulnerabilities.
- No public practitioner discussion naming Arcserve was found in the indexed threads. Operational experience with this product is not represented in this record.
- Pricing, contract terms, notice periods and support commitments are not part of any public register. They come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record.
- Certification status such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 or BSI C5 has to be checked against the current certificate and its stated scope. A valid certificate can still exclude the product being bought.
Whether Acronis is the right choice is not on this page
A record of what is true about a vendor is one half of a decision. The other half is your context: which criteria matter, how heavily each one weighs, what is a hard no, and who has to sign the result off. No public page can know that, and any page that claims to rank vendors for you is guessing at it.
Typical criteria for this category
Needs your case- Data Sovereignty & Residencyweight
- Certifications (BSI C5, ISO 27001, SOC 2)weight
- Scalability & Performanceweight
- Migration Complexityweight
- Vendor Lock-in Riskweight
Criteria shown as examples for backup and recovery. Weighting and fit are properties of your decision, not of the vendor, so they are not published here.
What DecisionOS adds on top of this record
- The vendor scored against your criteria with your weighting, not against a generic ranking
- A dealbreaker check against your hard constraints: data residency, contract terms, existing stack
- A side-by-side view of the alternatives on your shortlist, built from this same evidence pool
- This evidence mapped onto your compliance scope: NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001, SOC 2
- A decision memo your board can read, with the trade-offs and the reasoning on the record
Questions this page answers
Which is better, Acronis or Arcserve?
This page does not answer that, and no public page can. Better exists only relative to a decision: which criteria matter, how heavily each weighs, what counts as a dealbreaker and which systems the product has to live next to. What this page gives you is the evidence on both, 102 items on Acronis and 35 on Arcserve, each with its source, so the judgement rests on the record rather than on marketing.
Does Acronis or Arcserve have more vulnerabilities?
Acronis currently has 54 attributed advisories in this record and Arcserve has 4. That comparison is easy to misread. A vulnerability register records what researchers found and what the vendor disclosed, so a widely deployed product with an active disclosure process accumulates more entries than one nobody audits. A low count can equally mean a small install base or a vendor that publishes little. The two figures are also not measured with equal precision: an advisory only counts here when a register ties it to a named product, and 1 entries naming Acronis and 24 naming Arcserve could not be tied to one. The count worth reading closely is how many entries appear in the CISA catalogue of known exploited vulnerabilities, which is 1 for Acronis and 1 for Arcserve.
How independent is the evidence on Acronis and Arcserve?
60 percent of the Acronis record and 100 percent of the Arcserve record come from sources the vendor does not control: government vulnerability registers, public practitioner threads and a fixed list of recognised analysts and technology press. Material either vendor publishes about itself stays in the record and is labelled as a claim.
What does this comparison of Acronis and Arcserve leave out?
Pricing, contract terms, notice periods, support commitments and the current scope of any certificate. None of those appear in a public register; they come from the vendor and belong in a negotiation record. Fit with your existing stack and your compliance scope is also absent, because it is a property of your organisation rather than of a backup and recovery product.
Why does nexalign publish this instead of ranking Acronis and Arcserve?
Because a ranking would have to invent the buyer. Every quadrant and score sheet silently assumes a weighting that belongs to someone else's decision. nexalign publishes the record and keeps the weighting where it belongs, in DecisionOS, where it is set by the people who have to defend the outcome.
The full records
Acronis: the full evidence record
102 items from 6 kinds of source
Arcserve: the full evidence record
35 items from 4 kinds of source
Two records do not make a decision
Choosing between Acronis and Arcserve depends on which criteria matter to you, how heavily each one weighs, what your hard constraints are and who has to sign the result off. DecisionOS takes this same evidence pool, scores it against the criteria of your actual decision and produces a memo that holds up in front of a board and an auditor.