We performed a comparison between AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Azure Site Recovery 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."CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is a fairly stable solution."
"Technical support has been very good. They usually respond quickly to our requests."
"We have never had any issues with scalability."
"We went from an organization with minimal to no disaster recovery. I was able to spin up the disaster recovery environment with AWS rather quickly and meet business requirements."
"The initial setup is really straightforward."
"For regular backup and restore solutions, this product is fine."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward, it's not complex."
"The solution is dependent on the network bandwidth. For example, if they have a bandwidth of 10Mbps the solution will run a little heavier. If the bandwidth is good the solution runs well."
"Our primary use case is for disaster recovery and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR)."
"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 solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs."
"Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"It is a very stable product and very scalable."
"The only thing I would like to see is, they don't have a formal ticketing system. There is no way I can go back and see what questions we had six months back, what issues we had, and how they were resolved."
"Definitely there should be better logging. From a customer perspective I would like to see more logs on what is happening. If there is an issue, I would like to know what the problem is. Right now, we have to depend on the support of the vendor to check and let us know, because we don't have access to a lot of logging information."
"The solution's network setup and a lot of the control tower setup could be improved."
"Sometimes a server will get a bit behind. "
"The failback could be improved. It should be more intuitive."
"I set up a test, deleted the source, and went to fail it back, and it didn't work."
"The UI could be a little sleeker."
"I have not seen any areas that need improvement at this time."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"Azure Site Recovery's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability."
"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."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"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."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"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."
"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."
More AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is ranked 17th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 11 reviews while Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews. AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is rated 7.4, while Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery writes "Free, easy to use, and offers good support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Azure Site Recovery writes "Useful for restoration purposes that ensures that the users get to save a lot of time". AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is most compared with AWS Backup, Oracle Data Guard, VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery, Zerto and Veeam Backup & Replication, whereas Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, VMware SRM, Zerto, Commvault Cloud and VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery. See our AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs. Azure Site Recovery 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.
