We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and NAKIVO Backup & Replication based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most useful thing is that it provides a snapshot of your environment in about 15 minutes. It is stable, and it always works. It is also scalable and easy to set up."
"Azure Site Recovery allows my company to save around 30 percent of the time on every VM that we need to back up and restore."
"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"What I like best about Azure Site Recovery is that it's easier to use because my organization already has Azure as an Active Directory solution."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"They're moving a lot of their workload to cloud and aiming for a seamlessly integrated product."
"Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs."
"Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"The solution offers reliable copying and fast recovery."
"The ability to create a replica of all virtual machines is a great feature."
"It is easy to set up using the included virtual appliance and also includes agents for most NAS systems."
"This solution was surprisingly easy to configure."
"Nakivo's reporting features have helped a lot. They give my boss high visibility into what's going on, which is crucial because we had a data breach in the past where we lost about 12 years of data. That's why we bought several appliances, and we replicate the same backup twice a day to three different depositories."
"Technical support responds very quickly."
"Nakivo gives users confidence in knowing that if something happens with their application server, exchange server, or other applications, they can recover it easily and quickly."
"The back-up and restore functions work great and it's easy to use."
"I conveyed the feedback to the agent, suggesting an increase in the agent count in our VNS in the USA. I also addressed notification concerns, as some issues didn't trigger alerts during a recent call."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution could be improved."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"The tool should improve synchronization."
"It is for site-to-site replication. When something goes wrong on your site, you only get 15 minutes before it also goes wrong on your replicated site. There should be some way to be able to say that we want to restore it, but we want to restore it to the version from yesterday. It should support versioning. I would also like to see real-time scanning for advanced threat protection, more straightforward billing, and quicker turnaround on the tech support."
"It is missing the file and folder backup; however, this product is meant for virtual machine backup and recovery, so that is really outside of the scope of the software."
"What must be improved is the response time to technical support requests."
"We want the backup job to consume fewer resources, as the utilization is very high if we choose the best compression."
"At the moment I am pleased with what Nakivo does but I would like more reporting functions and if possible, integration with my RMM system."
"The only thing I could say is maybe some more options for job scheduling are needed."
"In the loading of a backup, choosing what to restore seems to be a lengthy process, but it has always worked in my restore tests."
"Automatic updates do not work, and every update has to be done manually."
"In terms of what could be improved for the next release, I would probably answer better documentation and licensing models."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews while NAKIVO Backup & Replication is ranked 5th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 85 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while NAKIVO Backup & Replication is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Azure Site Recovery writes "Useful for restoration purposes that ensures that the users get to save a lot of time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NAKIVO Backup & Replication writes "Good deduplication, easy to configure, and offers a free version". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Commvault Cloud, whereas NAKIVO Backup & Replication is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Hornetsecurity Altaro VM Backup, Acronis Cyber Protect, Rubrik and Zerto. See our Azure Site Recovery vs. NAKIVO Backup & Replication report.
See our list of best Disaster Recovery (DR) Software vendors.
We monitor all Disaster Recovery (DR) Software 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.
