We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Disaster Recovery as a Service solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"It is a very stable product and very scalable."
"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"They're moving a lot of their workload to cloud and aiming for a seamlessly integrated product."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs."
"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"The tool's most valuable feature is ease of use."
"The solution is stable."
"Hyper-convergence gives me the ability to patch my firmware, software, and hypervisors with a single click. That is extremely useful."
"We haven't needed anyone to maintain or deploy the solution. The traditional Nutanix administrator can administer the solution."
"It is a very secure and scalable solution, and their support is also outstanding."
"It offers synchronous data replication, allowing us to sync our recovery data every hour and efficiently send applications to remote sites."
"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 tool should improve synchronization."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"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 immutable backup could be better."
"Could have more integration with other platforms."
"Azure Site Recovery's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability."
"I would like to see more security features."
"The solution needs improvement in cost."
"I think that Nutanix should support public clouds instead of the Nutanix data centers."
"The pricing could be better."
"The product is more costly than other platforms. The price could be better."
"For moving the data for DR, we are using Megaport. We are using a Megaport link between the data centers, so we have a third party for the site-to-site connectivity between the data centers. If such connectivity is available from the Nutanix side, it would be helpful for us."
"They need better reporting on the environment."
More Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews while Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service is ranked 3rd in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 6 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service is rated 8.6. 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 Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service writes "Affordable, highly scalable, and outstanding support". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Rubrik, whereas Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service is most compared with Zerto, VMware SRM, Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines, Veeam Backup & Replication and VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery. See our Azure Site Recovery vs. Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service report.
See our list of best Disaster Recovery as a Service vendors.
We monitor all Disaster Recovery as a Service 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.