They seem to offer different use cases - I'm not sure you can say one is better than the other. rsync.net is more expensive, but has included snapshots and bet

They seem to offer different use cases - I'm not sure you can say one is better than the other. rsync.net is more expensive, but has included snapshots and better fault tolerance/data retention policies. It's also been around for nearly 20 years, they own their own datacenters, and have a proven track record with thousands of users. This is cheaper (maybe, depending on your bandwidth usage) and gives you better "ownership" of the hardware, but because it is hardware its just as likely to fail or corrupt data as a hard drive sitting under your desk. This service is also in beta with just a handful of users. Both companies seem to have really good policies and to be unix user-friendly.