We compared Azure Backup and Nakivo based on user reviews in five categories. We reviewed all of the data and you can find the conclusion below.
Features: Azure Backup is commended for its scalability, comprehensive security options, and non-disruptive backup process. Users also like its seamless integration with various Azure services. Nakivo is praised for its offsite backup to Synology NAS and seamless cloud integration. Azure Backup needs to improve its backup and file-level restoration procedure. Nakivo could benefit from improvements in its remote upgrade capabilities, SNMP features, and application backup.
Service and Support: Azure's customer service is generally considered helpful and proactive, but a few users have reported longer wait times and slow issue resolution. Nakivo's support is praised for being quick, considerate, and attentive.
Ease of Deployment: Azure Backup's setup is easy, quick, and can be completed with minimal user involvement. Nakivo's setup was described as straightforward. A few users said the deployment was somewhat complex but not excessively difficult.
Pricing: Azure Backup is a cloud-based solution, so its pricing depends on factors like storage and data consumption. Azure offers competitive pricing and is considered more cost effective than many competing solutions. Nakivo offers lower licensing costs and a flexible pricing structure. Nakivo provides cost-efficient backups at a competitive price and even offers a free license for one year for up to five VMs.
ROI: Azure Backup offers a solid return on investment with its affordable pricing and low initial costs, particularly when upgrading solutions. Nakivo ensures a favorable return on investment with a reasonable total cost of ownership and reduced testing expenditures.
Comparison Results: Azure Backup is an affordable, scalable solution that features an effortless deployment and native integration with Azure services. While reviews of Azure Backup’s features were generally positive, some users reported unsatisfactory experiences with Azure support. Nakivo is a powerful, cost-effective solution that seamlessly integrates with the cloud, but it could use some enhancements in its SNMP features and remote upgrading functionality.
"The most valuable feature of Azure Backup is its ease of use and good integration with other Azure services."
"The product is very reliable and easy to use."
"I have no issues with the stability at all. So I don't necessarily care about the stability of the product. I look more at whether or not can I recover. And I haven't had a failed recovery yet. I've got no failed recoveries of all my years."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Backup is the native backup capabilities."
"With a couple of buttons, we can configure a VM for a backup and use the wall service, the storage wall service, pretty seamlessly."
"The best aspect of the solution is its backup functionality."
"The deployment process is quite easy in Azure."
"You have the flexibility to encrypt your backups and choose the storage capacity you're comfortable paying for."
"The most important feature besides the easy management of the different backup jobs is the automated e-mail notification functionality."
"The product license and support delivery have been great!"
"The initial setup is very straightforward."
"The price is much lower than competitors that do the same function."
"The backups, especially of the incremental type, are really quick (ranging from five to 10 to 45 to 50 minutes depending on the size of the VM)."
"The interface is basic and very easy to use which is what we are looking for."
"Technical support responds very quickly."
"I could install and configure the trial version in maybe half an hour and had a successful backup of our file server on the same night."
"Azure Backup must include features similar to enterprise solutions."
"In Avamar, the file-based restores are very quick and fast, whereas, in Azure Backup, VM restore is super easy, but if I have to do a file or a folder restore, I have to mount the entire VM image. I have to wait for some time for it to be mounted, and then I have to go inside and then check the file and copy it somewhere. It's a bit of a manual process, whereas in Avamar, you can directly select a file and folder, and it'll recover with whatever permissions you want."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved."
"The solution is still in its infancy; it's not a mature product yet."
"To make it a ten, it should have the ability to extend the retention and to perform a copy of the data outside of the subscription - with no additional costs."
"We have a concern with the backup when were are working with VMs that are running in Barracuda Firewall because it usually fails."
"It doesn't have the option to have a backup from the database. It has backup for the files, folders, and backup only the whole virtual machine. But if I need to do a backup from the Oracle database, from an Exchange server or from SharePoint, this ability isn't there. There is no application backup."
"I once tried restoring a Linux environment, and the size of the Linux VM or the data disk was really huge. It took a really long time to restore the environment and send the data from the storage to the disk. It took around 25 to 30 minutes, which was much longer than I anticipated. They can improve the duration of such restore operations. In the next release, it would also be good if they could reduce the duration for transferring the data from their storage to the actual storage while creating a virtual machine. They can reduce the duration or increase the data transfer rate."
"Updating VM Tools on a replicated VM could be better."
"The product needs to improve backup speed and replication speed."
"The way encryption is currently working could be improved. Currently, it's not possible to encrypt the backup to an NFS share directly. It needs to have the encryption within the Transporter/VM to enable encryption, which isn't optimal. So I'm hoping that in the near future this function will be implemented."
"Compression and data deduplication are okay, but they could be improved."
"I would like to see support for backing up from other platforms, such as physical machines."
"From an administrator usage perspective, the interface is very intuitive, but maybe the wizard for creating and modifying backup jobs could look a little fancier."
"More statistic options would be a great feature."
"We would like to back up File Shares to Amazon S3/Wasabi."
Azure Backup is ranked 9th in Backup and Recovery with 51 reviews while NAKIVO Backup & Replication is ranked 6th in Backup and Recovery with 84 reviews. Azure Backup is rated 7.8, while NAKIVO Backup & Replication is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Azure Backup writes "Straightforward to set up and manage and allows us to monitor all backups in one place". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NAKIVO Backup & Replication writes "Good deduplication, easy to configure, and offers a free version". Azure Backup is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Rubrik, Commvault Cloud, Acronis Cyber Protect and Veritas NetBackup, whereas NAKIVO Backup & Replication is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Hornetsecurity Altaro VM Backup, Acronis Cyber Protect, Rubrik and Zerto. See our Azure Backup vs. NAKIVO Backup & Replication report.
See our list of best Backup and Recovery vendors.
We monitor all Backup and Recovery 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.