We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and NAKIVO Backup & Replication 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."The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"It is a very stable product and very scalable."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"They're moving a lot of their workload to cloud and aiming for a seamlessly integrated product."
"Our primary use case is for disaster recovery and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR)."
"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 backup for physical machines and replication for the virtual environment are the most valuable aspects."
"We have found all the features of Nakivo to be useful and the solution is easier to use compared to Proxmox. It is user-friendly, we are very satisfied."
"It is easy-to-use."
"The product is easy to manage for any IT person who is new to backup, recovery, and replication."
"It is easy to set up using the included virtual appliance and also includes agents for most NAS systems."
"This is a user-friendly solution that has a lot of certifications and documentation for the Microsoft Hyper-V infrastructure."
"The updates are problem-free, so we can keep Nakivo up to date on the server and NAS too."
"The product license and support delivery have been great!"
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"Could have more integration with other platforms."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"Site Recovery's scalability could be improved."
"The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution could be improved."
"The product's performance is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The immutable backup could be better."
"I would love to see BackBlaze B2 implementation in the future, as that would be our preferred cloud destination, but Amazon and Wasabi are both very great choices in the meantime."
"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."
"The first implementation is a bit difficult but once is up and running is rock solid and extremely easy to manage."
"We would like to back up File Shares to Amazon S3/Wasabi."
"Updating VM Tools on a replicated VM could be better."
"When you schedule some jobs, you should be able to see a list of the jobs contained within each. You have to open up the editor to see what is inside. You must click through and edit stuff. Each time, it asks you to save or discard changes. It's very annoying. You only see the name of the scheduled job, and you need to edit it to see what's it's inside."
"In the press releases, it would be useful to make sure that the manual space reclaim procedure does not have to be performed but that it happens automatically, thus optimizing the use of space."
"Using an independent bootable media to restore full physical machines would enable physical machines that may be serving as Nakivo Director or Transport machines to be reliably restored to service without undue delay, ensuring that an enterprise's local environment remains intact."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 18 reviews while NAKIVO Backup & Replication is ranked 5th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 84 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while NAKIVO Backup & Replication is rated 9.4. 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 NAKIVO Backup & Replication writes "Good deduplication, easy to configure, and offers a free version". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, VMware SRM, Zerto and AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery, whereas NAKIVO Backup & Replication is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Hornetsecurity Altaro VM Backup, Acronis Cyber Protect, Rubrik and Zerto. See our Azure Site Recovery vs. NAKIVO Backup & Replication 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.
