We performed a comparison between Azure Backup and NetApp SnapCenter based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Backup and Recovery solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The fact that Azure Backup is integrated is one of its biggest advantages."
"The storage backup is very efficient."
"It's stable."
"With a couple of buttons, we can configure a VM for a backup and use the wall service, the storage wall service, pretty seamlessly."
"It is a stable solution...It is a highly scalable solution."
"Enables immediate recovery and immediate restoration."
"The daily backups have become easier since we no longer need to handle large backups. The use of Azure Backup as a service has proven reliable and simplified our daily operations. Previously, we relied on LTO backups for data retention, but after migrating to the cloud and adopting Azure Backup, the delivery process has become smoother."
"I like that it's a stable solution and their support is good. I think Microsoft's commercial force is superior."
"It allows us to easily take a Snapshot and use it with any backup tools. We can also take Snapshots on the application side. We can also take Snapshots on the application side. If we want to restore an SAP or an Oracle machine, a normal Snapshot won't do it, but we can do so with SnapCenter."
"The product’s most valuable feature is cloning."
"It's integrated with VMware vCenter. You can also see the backups there and you can do a restore completely out of vCenter."
"Being able to add everything in as resource groups is a valuable feature... Having all the SQL servers put into specific buckets, based on their year of release - 2008, 2012, 2014 - allows us to get almost immediate backups that are easily seen and reported on."
"It's all together managing both storage and backup, which makes it easier for troubleshooting issues and the automation part of it"
"The central pane view is the most valuable feature. You have one console where you can monitor all your jobs, as opposed to going to different vCenters."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The way that it interconnects with VMware is really handy, because you can go right into your vSphere client, where you spend a lot of the day anyway, right-click on one of the VMs where you have backups running for however long, and you can restore either some files or restore the entire thing."
"The tool's backup should be faster. Azure Backup's support should be faster."
"The product must improve on a database level."
"It doesn't have the option to have a backup from the database. It has backup for the files, folders, and backup only the whole virtual machine. But if I need to do a backup from the Oracle database, from an Exchange server or from SharePoint, this ability isn't there. There is no application backup."
"I believe more options could be available to understand better what's happening in the system. Additionally, automating the client updates and connector updates would be beneficial. Updating the connector from time to time can be challenging, and it could be made more transparent and straightforward for users. Moreover, another drawback lies in the time it takes to test full data backup recovery. Deploying a full recovery takes longer. We need to allocate a longer period for complete data recovery to establish the environment again."
"The compression ratio of the backup data should be improved."
"The user interface is a little bit confusing and it could be better."
"The integration with the record database and integration with other applications will be good, especially with the database piece."
"The Azure Backup support for on-premises service is limited."
"Since the solution's initial setup is complex, it should make training documents available in the public space."
"Plugins should be developed in shorter times. Performance generally could be a little bit faster."
"It needs to support vSphere 6.7."
"The Microsoft environment is its biggest disadvantage due to the central management of all the actions. Because the SnapCenter server is where we deploy everything, it also affects the Microsoft environment, which can cause many difficulties when resolving issues like Windows update problems."
"There is one area that needs improvement and that's in the alerting. When you set up your SMTP alerts, it only has - and I don't understand why - the ability to send an anonymous SMTP. It doesn't do basic authentication, which frustrated me for a while until I figured out that I'm not missing something. It's just not there."
"What I did witness lately are issues with some Microsoft KBs, the updates. But it happened only once, and not on a major platform, it was on a small one."
"We tend to have a lot of Hyper-V... so now we have two management consoles and we would ideally like to leverage SnapCenter to include Hyper-V."
"If it was possible to create backups on non-NetApp storage, that would be helpful."
Azure Backup is ranked 7th in Backup and Recovery with 51 reviews while NetApp SnapCenter is ranked 42nd in Backup and Recovery with 24 reviews. Azure Backup is rated 7.8, while NetApp SnapCenter is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Azure Backup writes "Straightforward to set up and manage and allows us to monitor all backups in one place". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp SnapCenter writes "A stable solution that is mostly used by banks and financial institutions". Azure Backup is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Rubrik, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup and Acronis Cyber Protect, whereas NetApp SnapCenter is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Cohesity DataProtect, Commvault Cloud, NetApp Cloud Backup and Delphix. See our Azure Backup vs. NetApp SnapCenter report.
See our list of best Backup and Recovery vendors.
We monitor all Backup and Recovery reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
