What the test actually involved
Hearn pointed each tool at his screenshots folder, looking for seven files he had previously deleted. The tools were EaseUS Data Recovery Wizard, Recuva and Microsoft's Windows File Recovery. The report doesn't give the Windows version, tool versions, file system, drive type, how long ago the files were deleted, file sizes or exact commands. Treat the outcome as one data point, not a ranking.
EaseUS Data Recovery Wizard: found everything, slowly
Hearn calls EaseUS the friendliest of the three. It is entirely GUI-driven: you pick a drive or folder and scan. By his account:
- The scan took about 25 minutes and covered more than a terabyte of data. He says it looked at underlying sectors for fragmented data, not just the one folder.
- It found all seven files and kept their original names and folder structure, rather than returning generic names.
- It also includes disk-health and file-repair tools.
The article's headline calls all three tools "free", and that needs a qualification. EaseUS's own support page, updated October 24, 2025, says the product has a Trial version and a Free version, and only the Free version includes free recovery. The Free version provides 500 MB of free recovery by default is how the EaseUS page puts the default, and the page says sharing the product on social media can add 1.5 GB. The page also says the allowance is a total for that computer, and reinstalling does not reset it. Larger recoveries require a paid license.
The report doesn't say how large the seven screenshots were. It also doesn't say whether they were saved within the free allowance. "Got everything back" therefore describes this test. It does not mean unlimited free recovery.
Recuva: plenty of scanning, no target files
Hearn found Recuva, from CCleaner, the weakest of the three:
- A first scan of the folder finished in under 30 seconds and found no deleted files.
- An 11-minute Deep Scan also found nothing.
- A whole-drive scan reported more than 111,000 deleted files, but he couldn't tell what they were.
He also complained about the download site and an interface that felt dated. CCleaner's support documentation, as summarized in the research notes, says Deep Scan searches drive clusters for file headers and can take longer. It says Deep Scan may not rebuild fragmented files, and that no specific file is guaranteed to come back whole. It also advises restoring to a different drive. The same documentation says you should open recovered files in their original applications to confirm they work.
Windows File Recovery: official, fast, and fiddly
Hearn's experience with Microsoft's own tool was mixed. By his account, the scan was fast but did not find the target screenshots. It did find other files, and some of those came back incomplete, with artifacts and missing segments. He found the command-line syntax tricky.
He also says the tool needs an external drive as the destination. Microsoft's documentation is slightly more precise:
- Windows File Recovery is installed from the Microsoft Store, and it opens a Command Prompt window.
- Microsoft's documented format is
winfr source-drive: destination-drive: [/mode] [/switches]. - The source and destination drives must be different. If you have only one drive, Microsoft suggests a USB or external drive as the destination. It also warns against creating a new partition after data loss.
- Microsoft creates a
Recovery_<date and time>folder on the destination drive. - When recovering from the operating-system drive, usually C:, use
/nfilters to name the files or folders you want. Otherwise you may get extra system-generated files mixed in. - Microsoft says it does not support recovery from cloud storage or network shares.
So "external drive" is the practical answer for most single-drive PCs, but any suitable separate drive works.
Choosing a mode in Windows File Recovery
Microsoft documents two main modes. Recovering files from non-NTFS file systems is only supported by extensive mode. Microsoft's guidance is:
| File system | Situation | Recommended mode |
|---|---|---|
| NTFS | Deleted recently | Regular |
| NTFS | Deleted a while ago | Extensive |
| NTFS | After formatting a disk | Extensive |
| NTFS | Corrupted disk | Extensive |
| FAT / exFAT | Any | Extensive |
If you're unsure, Microsoft says to start with Regular. If you used Regular mode, try again in extensive mode if the file type is supported.
Two example commands from Microsoft's page:
winfr C: E: /regular /n \Users\<username>\Documents\
winfr C: E: /extensive /n \Users\<username>\Pictures\*.JPEG /n \Users\<username>\Pictures\*.PNGFolder filters need a trailing backslash, and paths with spaces need quotes. Press Y to confirm when prompted, and Ctrl+C to stop.
The research notes don't say which mode Hearn used. That is a real gap, because screenshots deleted a while ago on NTFS would call for Extensive mode under Microsoft's guidance.
A sensible recovery routine
The sources support this sequence:
- Check the Recycle Bin and any backups first.
- After a permanent deletion, stop using the affected drive as much as you can. Microsoft explains that deleted-file space is marked free and can be overwritten by ordinary activity, especially on an SSD.
- Install or run the recovery tool so that it saves to a different drive.
- Filter your scan to a folder or file type where the tool allows it.
- Open the recovered files to confirm they are intact. A file name in a results list isn't proof of a usable file.
Reading the results fairly
Hearn's own conclusion is measured: none of these tools guarantees success, and sometimes a file is gone for good. These results don't show that EaseUS is generally best, that Recuva can't recover files, or that Windows File Recovery is ineffective. They show what happened with one set of seven files on one machine.
Several factors could explain the gaps. Different scanning methods, deletion age, file system and SSD behavior all matter, but the report doesn't say which applied here. EaseUS's convenience and its recovery of the tested files are real advantages in this test. The free-recovery cap and the $70 price shown for the product are the trade-off. The official tool costs nothing but demands command-line comfort and a second drive.
The safest advice is the least exciting: keep backups, because recovery software is a last resort.