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."The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs."
"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"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."
"Our primary use case is for disaster recovery and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR)."
"We use the tool for business continuity purposes."
"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."
"The most valuable features of this solution are SnapShot, FlexClone, and deduplication."
"Snapshots are one valuable feature within ONTAP, but CVO's appeal is that it acts just like the on-prem solution. It's the same OS, but in the cloud. We can continue to use ONTAP as we did on-premise."
"It's very easy to set up, and within 40 minutes, you can apply storage notes in Azure."
"NetApp's XCP Migration Tool... was pretty awesome. It replicated the data faster than any other tool that I've seen. That was a big help."
"We are definitely in the process of reducing our footprint on our secondary data center and all those snapshots technically reduce tape backup. That's from the protection perspective, but as far as files, it's much easier to use and manage and it's faster, too."
"I like how you can easily pair on-prem with the cloud and the cloud backup feature. I like the whole integration with on-prem and the cloud for SnapMirror relationships."
"If anything happens, their technical support will come onsite and fix it."
"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."
"Site Recovery's scalability could be improved."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"The immutable backup could be better."
"The product's performance is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It could include more of a backup and recovery."
"The support team took a lot of time to respond and was not very professional."
"The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution 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."
"There is room for improvement in tier one support, especially with potential language barriers and communication challenges."
"I would like to see better integration with Active IQ."
"NetApp CVO needs to have more exposure and mature further before it will have greater acceptance."
"The cost needs 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."
"We have customers that are still using IBM mainframes and that very old SNA architecture from IBM. There are questions about how you interconnect the data on the mainframe side... But I don't know if it's worth it for NetApp to invest in developing products to include mainframes for a few customers."
"How it handles erasure coding. I feel it the improvement should be there. Basically, it should be seamless. You don't want to have an underlying hardware issue or something, then suddenly there's no reads or writes. Luckily, it's at a replication site, so our main production site is still working and writing to it. But, the replication site has stopped right now while we try to bring that node back. Since we implemented in bare-metal, not in appliance, we had to go back to the original vendor. They didn't send it in time, and we had a hardware memory issue. Then, we had a hard disk issue, which brought the node down physically."
"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."
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.
