I have never benchmarked FileVault, so i can't comment on its performance relative to QRecall's. I would expect, however, that they would be comparable. QRecall uses the encryption engine built into OS X, which is what I assume FileVault uses. There are several aspects of QRecall's encryption that differ from whole disk encryption:
QRecall allows archives to be encrypted on volumes that don't support encryption.
Each archive has its own key. A single volume can contain multiple archives, each encrypted with a different key.
Other processes that have read access to the archive won't see any plaintext data.
An archive key is a completely random AES key, not derived from a password, so it has maximum entropy. This means that the encryption is stronger than the password (and immune to password crackers).
Because the key isn't based on a password, the archive's password can be changed without re-encrypting the archive.
|