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."Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"It is a very stable product and very scalable."
"We use the tool for business continuity purposes."
"Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of what is happening with our business as well as the good reporting and dashboards."
"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."
"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"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 offers synchronous data replication, allowing us to sync our recovery data every hour and efficiently send applications to remote sites."
"It is a very secure and scalable solution, and their support is also outstanding."
"The tool's most valuable feature is ease of use."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"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."
"The immutable backup could be better."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"It could include more of a backup and recovery."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"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."
"The solution needs improvement in cost."
"The product is more costly than other platforms. The price could be better."
"The pricing could be better."
"They need better reporting on the environment."
"I think that Nutanix should support public clouds instead of the Nutanix data centers."
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.