I'd argue that the interface for setting up incremental backups could be better, and scheduled tasks can result in an unkillable prompt - when my laptop isn't on my LAN, I don't want the backups to run at all.
Last year when migrating to a new HDD I cloned the Windows partition using Clonezilla, just to be met with BSOD immediately. I wasted 2 days trying to figure out what's the problem, Windows boot recovery, driver injection etc. After 2 days I created a Macrium Reflect live media, cloned the original partition again with it and voila! Windows booted successfully in the first try.
I'll never use Clonezilla again because I value my time.
(I used it about a month ago to attempt to clone a failing drive after Clonezilla choked and died horribly. It got significantly further, not sure if going to it first would've helped more.)
I don't want to besmirch the name of someone's good work of course. But I used Clonezilla a couple years ago and it was antiquated in both interface and features compared to Reflect. A live image and a resize while doing an intelligent copy of the actual in-use data (vs a whole-disk forensic image) is absolutely no problem. It's by far the easiest thing I've ever used for disk-to-disk clones and imaging.
Clonezilla takes a solid knowledge of Linux even to get the job done in many cases, it's not full featured, and I found it was not particularly solid on my hardware. I preferred the plain Ubuntu LiveCD versus it, or at a minimum SystemRescueCD if you insisted on a rescue-oriented livesystem.
Neither tool used 7zip/p7zip to hit maximum compression, but it's easy either way. You do that later on your fileserver.