Most Valuable Professional
Group: Forum Members
A clone would get the most current data from the source disk, and if you didn't already have an image, then a clone is faster since you're reading the source and writing the destination at the same time rather than capturing an image first and then restoring it second. However, a clone also requires that both the source and destination disks be connected at the same time, which not everyone has the hardware to achieve, whereas with an image you can capture an image of the source, then swap drives, then restore to the destination. On the other hand, an image requires you to have a third location other than your source or destination where you can store the image file.
But in terms of the final result on the destination, assuming the image you would be restoring contains the same data as the source disk you would be cloning, then the outcome on the destination disk will be the same, so it just depends on what's more convenient for your circumstances.