Using the most standard compression - infozip’s zip 3.0 with all defaults, source compresses to 998,508,177 bytes, which is on pair with 1st snapshot size of both tools.
I don’t think that compression and DB size matters much… The whole fact of having a separate DB in TI vs using file system as DB by CY makes the most interesting difference.
However - so far, results are a bit inconclusive. Obviously, source data set is relatively small (but large enough for test scenario testing).
I realized that CY does not support WebDav ot Box - so can’t test against these.
Instead, I used Google Drive. So far, CY is faster in all cases except restore, but data asks for more testing - with different provides and larger data set…
CY did not use more than one upload/download thread for Google Drive - I bet it can improve speed with different destination.
CY also does not require local DB, which might be beneficial in some recovery cases.
I’ll try to test Backblaze B2 and Wasabi next. If any of these can utilize multithreaded upload, I’ll test them with larger dataset (>10Gb).
The impression so far is that for most people TI is better due to free web-based UI, but for people, who like scripting and cli, CY might a better option due to the technical design…