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."For regular backup and restore solutions, this product is fine."
"The most valuable aspect of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is its instant block replication feature. This allows us to perform live block verification and eliminates the need to concern ourselves with recovery point objectives. This capability is particularly advantageous for critical workloads."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward, it's not complex."
"CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is a fairly stable solution."
"It's on the cheaper side and not too expensive for users."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"Technical support has been very good. They usually respond quickly to our requests."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of what is happening with our business as well as the good reporting and dashboards."
"The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"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."
"Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"The failback could be improved. It should be more intuitive."
"The bandwidth is a constant upload communication to the AWS DR environment, so if you do not have the proper bandwidth, it will definitely eat up your internet line."
"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."
"The solution's network setup and a lot of the control tower setup could be improved."
"I have not seen any areas that need improvement at this time."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Site Recovery's scalability could be improved."
"The support team took a lot of time to respond and was not very professional."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"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."
"The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution could be improved."
More AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is ranked 15th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 11 reviews while Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 18 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, VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery and Commvault Cloud. 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.
