We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and Rubrik 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 solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"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."
"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's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"Our primary use case is for disaster recovery and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR)."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"What I like about Rubrik is its strong focus on security, particularly in combating ransomware threats."
"The file search feature across all backups has been helpful."
"We have a great success rate for backups with Rubrik and because of the ease of automating tasks, we also run periodical restores to check the quality of the backups."
"Not having to specify a time to run a backup with a fixed schedule is something that's really beneficial. In the past we had to schedule and try to manually stagger things over the window, to back up everything. Because Rubrik is SLA-based, you say, "Well, I need it to fit in this window here," and it just backs it up when it's most convenient for the Brik and for the third-party system. It looks at the CPU usage and says, "Okay, it's not as busy now. I know I've got time to take the backup." That's a real advantage."
"Rubrik is a faster unit from a hardware perspective. Things, like Live Mount, mean we can bring services back straightaway, then have them transition back into the live storage in the background. Because we can use Live Mount to do instant restores, a restore is now a five-minute job. Then, the rest of it is done in the background, rather than doing something for an hour before you actually get the restore back."
"The archiving, off-of-box, is awesome. It lets you put your data where you want it and gives you the peace of mind of having more than one copy of it. And it's smart about the way that it does the archiving. It doesn't just copy one-for-one. It does all of its processing of the deduplication and compression before it sends it off to the archive, which helps with our cloud costs."
"We had some VMware issue as VMware did some changes on the AHCI drivers. Rubrik saved our environment those times."
"The most valuable feature has been the Live Mount feature."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"Site Recovery's scalability could be improved."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"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."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"The immutable backup could be better."
"When it runs, it runs well but when it doesn't run, the solution needs to make it clearer as to why and what the troubleshooting process is. All this would be possible if the error logging was streamlined a bit."
"I would like to see more security features."
"The customer service and support could be a bit faster."
"It needs more storage array integration options and an easier restore for files that download using a browser."
"The solution's reporting feature could be better."
"The only thing that can be improved is catering for open source databases because at the moment it doesn't cater for Mongo, MySQL, and Postgres."
"We have some challenges with the solution's reporting because historical reports have some limitations."
"The licensing cost is quite high. That is something that needs to be worked out, because so many times it happens that the team does not have the budget or there are other issues at that time. Cost has become an important factor in deciding whether to continue with the Rubrik solution."
"They have what's called an organization which means different groups of access to Rubrik, but the alerting only goes to the admins. My suggestion to Rubrik is to make sure that the separate organizations or groups of users get the appropriate alerting."
"The dashboard and user interface could be improved to make them more user-friendly."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews while Rubrik is ranked 4th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 86 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while Rubrik is rated 9.2. 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 Rubrik writes "Automates the backup and recovery process, reducing manual human errors and global search allows for granular recoveries". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, whereas Rubrik is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Cohesity DataProtect, Commvault Cloud, Azure Backup and Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain). See our Azure Site Recovery vs. Rubrik 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.