We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and Quorum OnQ 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 very easy to use."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of what is happening with our business as well as the good reporting and dashboards."
"Our primary use case is for disaster recovery and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR)."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"I have used the BMR (Bare Metal Restore) in several emergencies and it has absolutely saved my bacon."
"The biggest feature is being able to do a file recovery to the original server. That is extremely useful and has saved us a few times when we've had ransomware. In some of those cases, people's computers were locked down by viruses which spread to things they had access to, including server shares. But we were easily able to just restore to four hours prior, instead of a day or two or more ago."
"The most valuable feature of Quorum OnQ is quick recovery."
"The most useful feature is the one-click recovery."
"Quorum OnQ has taken the guesswork out of backup/recovery and disaster recovery."
"It does automated tests to the systems to make sure that you could spin them up if you needed to. And if something doesn't come back up in those tests, we get a notification saying the system didn't come back up."
"It is a stable solution."
"Being able to spin up a machine in a sandbox is amazing because it allows us to test things that we otherwise would not be able to do."
"The tool should improve synchronization."
"The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution could be improved."
"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 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 support team took a lot of time to respond and was not very professional."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"The immutable backup could be better."
"Could have more integration with other platforms."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"I would really like it if they followed comparable products from other vendors and had an option where you could offload to tape. I know it sounds incredibly antiquated, but the benefit I see is that there would be a better air gap than you have with backing up to an online source."
"There was a situation I faced in the past when I contacted the tool's support team, and it took them a while to respond."
"We found that some of the live SQL databases we were backing up would be inconsistent when we would restore them."
"The one thing they could do is some tweaking on the web solution that's supposed to monitor everything from one page, rather than having to bring each server up on its own webpage. It doesn't always accurately show what the system's state is at the time, and we have to restart that process now and then."
"There seems to be a lack of technicians. Sometimes they are very busy and I don't hear back for a day or two. The technicians they have are great. They are fantastic, but it seems difficult, at times, to get in contact with anyone."
"I paid for subscription of Firewall. I paid for subscription of endpoint protection. Thet should introduce single subscription for all services."
"Better integration with cloud-based solutions like Azure and Office 365 is needed."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 18 reviews while Quorum OnQ is ranked 22nd in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 21 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while Quorum OnQ is rated 9.0. 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 Quorum OnQ writes "Took us just hours to do a complete server restore, with minimal downtime". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, VMware SRM, Zerto, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery, whereas Quorum OnQ is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Cohesity DataProtect, Acronis Cyber Protect and N-able Cove Data Protection. See our Azure Site Recovery vs. Quorum OnQ 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.
