Duplicator vs WPvivid Benchmark Comparison
Backup Scope
These plugins back up different data. Speed comparisons should account for scope differences.
| Component | Duplicator | WPvivid |
|---|---|---|
| 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.
Duplicator vs WPvivid: the record
Across 5 recorded battles, WPvivid leads 4 to 1. The record is split, so the margin matters more than the tally. Elo currently has them at 789 (Duplicator) against 715 (WPvivid).
Backup and restore speed
Backing up, Duplicator averages 18.6s against 14.5s for WPvivid. Restoring, it is 7.7s against 15.7s. The two phases disagree: WPvivid takes the backup by 22% while Duplicator takes the restore by 51%. 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. Worth noting that Duplicator is the quicker of the two overall and still trails on the record: battles are not scored on the clock alone. Coverage and archive size count, so a plugin can finish first and lose anyway. The sections below are where that gets decided.
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. WPvivid 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
Duplicator writes a ZIP archive, deflating each entry as it goes, averaging 83 MB. WPvivid writes a ZIP archive, deflating each entry as it goes, averaging 61 MB. That leaves WPvivid about 22 MB smaller per backup, which compounds against every copy you retain. Both compress, so the difference in size reflects what each one packed rather than whether it bothered to squeeze it.
Which should you choose?
If your backup window is the constraint, WPvivid 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, WPvivid captures more of the site; if you are paying for retention, WPvivid 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, Duplicator or WPvivid?
- On the runs recorded so far, WPvivid backs up faster, averaging 14.5s against 18.6s. 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 Duplicator and WPvivid back up the same files?
- No. WPvivid 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?
- Duplicator averages 83 MB per backup and WPvivid averages 61 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.