We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Commvault, Nutanix and others in Disaster Recovery as a Service."Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"Azure Site Recovery allows my company to save around 30 percent of the time on every VM that we need to back up and restore."
"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"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 solution is very easy to use."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of what is happening with our business as well as the good reporting and dashboards."
"Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"The ability to see things going back and forth has been quite useful."
"The storage tiering is definitely the most valuable feature... With respect to tiering, the inactive data is pushed to a lower tier where the storage cost is cheap, but the access cost is high."
"The initial setup was straightforward. We started with a small pilot and we then moved to production with no downtime at all."
"The solution’s Snapshot copies and thin clones in terms of operational recovery are the best thing since sliced bread. Rollback is super easy. It's just simple, and it works. It's very efficient."
"Another feature which gets a lot of attention in our environment is the File Services Solutions in the cloud, because it's a completely, fully-managed service. We don't have to take care of any updates, upgrades, or configurations."
"They have very good support team who is very helpful. They will help you with every aspect of getting the deployment done."
"One of the features our customers like is that it can be used from one cloud provider to another. They can use it from Azure to AWS or vice versa. That way, they don't need to use the same provider for backups. If something goes wrong on the primary site, having the same data in another cloud service provider is important."
"The most valuable feature is its exceptional performance and storage efficiency."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"It could include more of a backup and recovery."
"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."
"Azure Site Recovery's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"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."
"The product's performance is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"I would like to see more security features."
"The encryption and deduplication features still have a lot of room for improvement."
"I would like to see more aggressive management of the aggregate space. On the Cloud Volumes ONTAP that we use for offsite backup copies, most of the data sits in S3. There are also the EBS volumes on the Cloud Volumes ONTAP itself. Sometimes what happens is that the aggregate size just stays the same. If it allocates 8 terabytes initially, it just stays at 8 terabytes for a long time, even though we're only using 20 percent of that 8 terabytes. NetApp could undersize that more aggressively."
"There is room for improvement with the capacity. There's a very hard limit to how many disks you can have and how much space you can have. That is something they should work to fix, because it's limiting. Right now, the limit is about 360 terabytes or 36 disks."
"I rate the scalability a five out of ten."
"I would like this solution to be brought to all the three major players. Right now it's supported only on AWS and Azure. They should bring it to Google as well, because we would like to have flexibility in choosing the underlying cloud storage provider."
"Their support and development teams can collaborate better to resolve an issue."
"The cost needs improvement."
"I would like to see something from NetApp about backups. I know that NetApp offers some backup for Office 365, but I would like to see something from NetApp for more backup solutions."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 18 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Software Defined Storage with 60 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. 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 NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, VMware SRM, Zerto, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and JetStream DR, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Cloud Storage and Portworx Enterprise.
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.
