BackWPup vs Duplicator Benchmark Comparison
Backup Scope
These plugins back up different data. Speed comparisons should account for scope differences.
| Component | BackWPup | Duplicator |
|---|---|---|
| Database | ||
| Plugins | ||
| Themes | ||
| Uploads | ||
| WordPress Core | ||
| wp-config.php |
Plugins that back up less data may appear faster but provide less protection.
Analysis
Written from this matchup's measurements. No editorial figures.
BackWPup vs Duplicator: the record
Across 5 recorded battles, BackWPup leads 5 to 0. It has taken every decided run in this matchup, which is a consistent result rather than a close one. Elo currently has them at 1263 (BackWPup) against 789 (Duplicator).
Backup and restore speed
Backing up, BackWPup averages 3.7s against 18.9s for Duplicator. Restoring, it is 14.8s against 7.9s. The two phases disagree: BackWPup takes the backup by 80% while Duplicator takes the restore by 47%. Which one counts depends on what you are protecting against. Backups run on a schedule and their cost is ongoing; a restore happens once, on your worst day, and that is usually the minute you care about.
What each one actually backs up
These two do not back up the same thing, which is the part a speed chart cannot show you. BackWPup archives wp-config.php where Duplicator does not. Time spent archiving more is not waste, so comparing seconds alone rewards whichever plugin does less.
Archive format and size
BackWPup writes a tar archive, averaging 164 MB. Duplicator writes a ZIP archive, deflating each entry as it goes, averaging 83 MB. That leaves Duplicator about 81 MB smaller per backup, which compounds against every copy you retain. The gap is mostly the format rather than the engineering: compressing costs CPU on the way in and returns little on media that is already compressed, so the plugin that skips it finishes sooner and stores more. Neither choice is wrong, but they optimise for different bills.
Which should you choose?
If your backup window is the constraint, BackWPup finishes first; if recovery time is what keeps you up, Duplicator is the one that gets you back sooner; if you want the archive to stand on its own, BackWPup captures more of the site; if you are paying for retention, Duplicator writes less per copy. Every figure above links to the run that produced it, including the logs, so none of this has to be taken on trust.
Common questions
- Which is faster, BackWPup or Duplicator?
- On the runs recorded so far, BackWPup backs up faster, averaging 3.7s against 18.9s. The restore goes the other way: Duplicator recovers faster. Speed alone does not settle it, because the two plugins do not always archive the same content.
- Do BackWPup and Duplicator back up the same files?
- No. BackWPup includes wp-config.php, which Duplicator leaves out. A smaller archive is not automatically a better one, and a faster backup is partly explained by there being less of it.
- How big are the backups?
- BackWPup averages 164 MB per backup and Duplicator averages 83 MB, measured on the same site profiles. Multiply by however many copies you keep before deciding the difference is academic.
- How does Backup Arena measure this?
- Both plugins run inside identical Docker containers against the same WordPress snapshot, on six hosting profiles ranging from constrained shared hosting to a dedicated box. Each configuration runs a discarded warm-up followed by three measured iterations, and the site is reset to a verified snapshot between every run. A backup that will not restore is a loss regardless of how quickly it was written.
- How much should I trust these numbers?
- This matchup has 5 recorded battles, which is enough to be indicative and not enough to be final. Every run is published with its logs so you can check the workings, and reruns can be requested.
Stats
By Site Profile
Looking for the arena's top-ranked option? See how SafeGuard compares.