R-Studio vs UFS Explorer

[jft135]

I'm working on a really strange recovery* right now, and the guys at RapidSpar recommended finishing a full image then using both R-Studio and UFS Explorer to scan the image. I own R-Studio, but not UFS Explorer. In your experience does one do a better job than the other? Are there enough cases where one is successful, but the other isn't to justify owning and running both? Is there one you prefer over the other (I need to buy a new R-Studio license soon anyway.

*I can read the MFT fine, and the RapidSpar assistant pretends to recover and save files. Unfortunately the majority of the files are nothing but zeroes. Imaging gets me mostly zeroes as well. Our consensus is a previous recovery attempt probably zeroed parts of the drive, but who really knows what the users did to it.

 

[DataMedics]

Both are very good, and each excels on some cases while the other excels in others. Also, you should know that UFS Explorer has a newer version called Recovery Explorer (http://r-explorer.com) which is much better than the older version.

R-Explorer (formerly UFS) supports XFS which is used by certain NASs. It was also the first to support APFS (though R-Studio now caught up just this week). R-Explorer is generally better for Apple filesystems compared to R-Studio. It also supports a few odd file system types that R-Studio doesn't. I also like that it has some features that streamline the recovery process and prevents a lot of duplication of the same files and the fact that it doesn't waste time scanning sectors of already known allocated files.

R-Studio on the other hand is easier to work with for doing RAID recoveries. Often if finds more data when it's an NTFS file system compared to the other programs. And it also allows for easier creation of custom RAW recovery file types. It also has better tools built in for manual analysis of data structures for the more advanced users compared to R-Explorer.

I'm not sure I could pick one or the other as I use both on a daily basis here.

 

[lcoughey]

I'm with Jared.

 

[Iurii]

It would be interesting to resume this discussion because 16 months have passed and both of these products have received many major updates during this time.

 

[lcoughey]

UFS is adding DeepSpar Disk Imager Support on Monday's update and has made huge improvements since we last discussed. In fact, it is quickly becoming my number 1 tool over R-studio.

 

[Joep]

And then maybe also: explain UFS Explorer vs. Recovery-Explorer. What should a tech get?

 

[lcoughey]

There is a link to a comparison chart on my company forum.

 

[lcoughey]

I found the post here - https://www.recoveryforce.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=472

 

[lcoughey]

Further that, the developer just posted a few more comments today.