We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Commvault, Nutanix and others in Disaster Recovery as a Service."We use the solution across hospitality and healthcare domains. We use it for custom development. It helps us develop a seamless omnichannel for the healthcare industry."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"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 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 allows my company to save around 30 percent of the time on every VM that we need to back up and restore."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of what is happening with our business as well as the good reporting and dashboards."
"Multiprotocol is the most valuable because Amazon was not able to provide us with access to the same data from Linux and from Windows clients. That was our value proposition for CVO, Cloud Volumes ONTAP."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of file storage."
"Another feature which gets a lot of attention in our environment is the File Services Solutions in the cloud, because it's a completely, fully-managed service. We don't have to take care of any updates, upgrades, or configurations."
"We use the mirroring to mirror our volumes to our DR location. We also create snapshots for backups. Snapshots will create a specified snapshot to be able to do a DR test without disrupting our standard mirrors. That means we can create a point-in-time snapshot, then use the ability of FlexClones to make a writeable volume to test with, and then blow it away after the DR test."
"The ease of use in terms of how the product works is valuable. We are able to work with it and deploy the storage that we need."
"One of the most valuable features is its similarity to the physical app, which makes it familiar. It's almost identical to a real NetApp, which means you can run all of the associated NetApp processes and services with it. Otherwise, we would definitely have to deploy some hardware on a site somewhere, which could be a challenge in terms of CapEx."
"For us, the value comes from the solution's flexibility, speed, and hopefully cost savings in the long term."
"This solution has helped us because it is easy to use."
"The support team took a lot of time to respond and was not very professional."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"Could have more integration with other platforms."
"I would like to see more security features."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"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."
"It would be good if we could replicate the solution to multiple locations simultaneously because we are currently allowed to replicate to just a single location."
"The cost needs improvement."
"The navigation on some of the configuration parameters is a bit cumbersome, making the learning curve on functions somewhat steep."
"The encryption and deduplication features still have a lot of room for improvement."
"The dashboard is a little bit clunky. I like to see it a little bit more on the simplistic side. I would like to be able to create my own widgets and customize what I want to see a little bit more versus what is currently there. That would be helpful so that when I log in, I go straight to my widget or my board without going to multiple places to get to what I need to find or build."
"When it comes to a critical or a read-write-intensive application, it doesn't provide the performance that some applications require, especially for SAP. The SAP HANA database has a write-latency of less than 2 milliseconds and the CVO solution does not fit there. It could be used for other databases, where the requirements are not so demanding, especially when it comes to write-latency."
"The solution is not stable when using single nodes. This is a problem. NetApp should work on this solution to make it more stable with HA nodes and resolve this issue."
"I would like to see them improve the perspective of start and search in the panels. This would allow for better visualization of the contents that are captured in the tool."
"Scale-up and scale-out could be improved. It would be interesting to have multiple HA pairs on one cluster, for example, or to increase the single instances more, from a performance perspective. It would be good to get more performance out of a single HA pair."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Software Defined Storage with 60 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. 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 NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and JetStream DR, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Cloud Storage and Red Hat Ceph Storage.
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.
