Azure Site Recovery Reviews

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's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability. 

I have been using the product since 2014. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate Azure Site Recovery's scalability a seven out of ten. My company has more than 200 external users and 12 internal ones. 

Azure Site Recovery's tech support is fast and knowledgeable. 

Positive

We did the tool's deployment in-house. 

Azure Site Recovery is affordable. 

You can collaborate with established partners and professionals who have expertise in Azure Site Recovery. Gain knowledge and then implement it. I rate the product an eight out of ten. It is recommended for Microsoft-oriented ecosystems. Non-Microsoft organizations will find the product difficult. 

Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs. 

The tool should improve synchronization. 

I have been using the solution for two weeks. 

Azure Site Recovery is a stable product. 

The solution is a scalable product. My company has three to four users for the product. You need one to two technical resources to handle the deployment. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward and takes around three weeks to complete. 

We did the tool's deployment in-house. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Customers are interested in utilizing a BI engine for data recovery. While they initially provided their entire recovery, there have been instances where they considered switching to another solution. For certain customers, they opt not to cover the entire hardware or use Cisco cybersecurity, which might not be the case.

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.

I have been using Azure Site Recovery for three years. 

I would rate the stability 8 out of 10. 

It is very scalable. 

Before considering the use of Savavi services, there's an upfront payment requirement for numerous hours. In contrast, with Azure, the costs are more flexible, allowing payment based on actual usage rather than a fixed amount. This approach avoids the need to commit significant funds upfront, making it more cost-effective, especially in cases where the service might not be consistently utilized, ensuring a better return on investment.

It is easy. 

They have a license to pay. 

Overall, I would rate it 8 out of 10. 

We back up our site to it and use it for a VR. We are using the most up to date version of this 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.

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.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It always works.

It is scalable. Currently, we have only one user who uses it.

I don't work with tech support, but they can have a quicker turnaround on the tech support.

It was pretty straightforward. It was just installing the clients and setting up your site recovery. You can also use the documentation. 

Our network or systems engineer maintains it.

It should have more straightforward billing. The billing was what got funky. It was really cheap. We would pay based on the usage. We paid around $225 a month for site-to-site replication.

The best advice that I could give is to just research what Azure Site Recovery is for. It is not a backup solution. So, even though you have enabled Site Recovery, you still need backups.

I would rate Azure Site Recovery a nine out of ten.

I primarily use Site Recovery to back up our site server.

Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration.

Site Recovery could improve its communication of when new features are available.

I've been using Site Recovery for a year.

I would rate Site Recovery's stability eight out of ten - we've had some issues but only infrequently.

Site Recovery's scalability could be improved.

Microsoft has the best technical support available.

Previously, I used Veaam Backup.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Site Recovery has given us a good return on our investment.

I would recommend Site Recovery for single and larger companies. I would give Site Recovery a rating of eight out of ten.

We use this solution mainly for compliance and to a DR and a commitment in RTO and RPO.

The most valuable feature is the visibility of what is happening with our business as well as the good reporting and dashboards. 

The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution primarily for migrations, backup and BCP.

All the features are great.

The immutable backup could be better and should be improved.

We have been using this solution for about four years. It is deployed differently depending on the customer.

It is a stable product.

It is scalable. Our customers are small and midsize businesses.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup was straightforward and took about 4 hours to complete.

The pricing should be free, and I think it should not be that expensive.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products.

We haven't really found any of the features to be valuable. It's around five years behind other market leaders. We prefer to use VMware products for site recovery software.

We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor.

I have been using Site Recovery since 2015. 

It is a very stable product and very scalable. If you've got existing technology it is very very difficult to move across.

I would rate their technical support as six out of ten.

We use VMware Site Recovery Manager. 

The initial setup is fairly easy. It's feature-diluted. It's quite easy to set up. You do need support from Microsoft though if you're going to get the most out of it. Their support isn't so good. We prefer to use our partners. We've gotten little support and little help from them. They're not as knowledgeable as our own partners. 

We've invested nearly 20 million pounds in Azure and it's been an absolute disaster for us.

We've got three full-time administrators, which is quite high. That supports 10,000 people but we are 95% of our services actually in VMware.

In the next release, I would like to see better block-level recovery. It is key. Bare metal recovery and block-level recovery. 

I would rate Azure Site Recovery a four out of ten. If you start from scratch, it's fine.