We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and Commvault Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Disaster Recovery as a Service solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"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."
"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."
"We use the tool for business continuity purposes."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"It is a very stable product and very scalable."
"Our primary use case is for disaster recovery and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR)."
"I can collect the target data, then we connect it to Commvault. There is not another system that can connect to our target database or target storage. This is very important for us, because there is the threat of malware right now. This can protect not only the product, but also the backup data from outside threats."
"They have a strong development team and are market leaders in the space."
"We can go from one page to another page, from office backups to VM backups, or applications like secret backups. So everything can be configured or restored from a single pin."
"The solution provides us with a single platform to move, manage, and recover our data across on-premise locations. Some of the guys have been using it to move a virtual machine from VMware to the Microsoft solution, Hyper-V. They back it up and then they restore to the different virtual machine provider, and that works great."
"The embedded deduplication engine is really good because we use a Near Line SAS disk as a repository for our backups, and we don't need to pay for another appliance such as a Data Domain or Quantum so that we can have hardware-based deduplication."
"The solution is scalable."
"The user interface is very easy to navigate."
"The product is a reliable solution."
"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."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"Could have more integration with other platforms."
"The product's performance is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"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 setup is not that straightforward or easy. Even the documentation is not generic or public like other products. You have to be a partner or you have to have a specific account and download it from the vendor themselves."
"The speed of the Office 365 Backup & Recovery feature is adequate. Microsoft controls the amount of bandwidth that people have when they're using Azure and the O365 environment... If they could work out something with Microsoft to improve the speed, that would help."
"The local support could be improved."
"There could be improvements to the backup failures."
"There are many settings that have to be done on your own. It would benefit from a better interface."
"Just to keep it running is time-consuming. There are five people on my team. Commvault was supposed to be one of the less time-consuming solutions, but in reality it takes 60 percent of our time just to keep it running, and that's not even fine-tuning it; that's just to keep it running."
"Commvault likes to be ahead of the game when it comes to merging with other platforms, but sometimes it's before they have the solution truly baked in. Office 365 is an example. I feel that my company might be a litmus test for their solution, because we have such a large environment. Some of the promised solutions that we received from Commvault were more like testing solutions. They weren't really validated, meaning they were possibilities. There have been a lot of hot fixes for the solution that we're using right now, more than we expected."
"This solution can be complex and difficult to administer because it supports all of the many platforms, so it would help if they could simplify it."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews while Commvault Cloud is ranked 2nd in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 104 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while Commvault Cloud is rated 8.6. 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 Commvault Cloud writes "Provides excellent visibility and helps reduce costs and time". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery, whereas Commvault Cloud is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Rubrik, Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365, Azure Backup and Zerto. See our Azure Site Recovery vs. Commvault Cloud report.
See our list of best Disaster Recovery as a Service vendors and best Disaster Recovery (DR) Software vendors.
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.