We performed a comparison between AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Backup 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."
"We have never had any issues with scalability."
"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 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."
"Technical support has been very good. They usually respond quickly to our requests."
"We went from an organization with minimal to no disaster recovery. I was able to spin up the disaster recovery environment with AWS rather quickly and meet business requirements."
"The setup is pretty straightforward."
"CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is a fairly stable solution."
"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 stability has been really good."
"If anything happens, their technical support will come onsite and fix it."
"The most valuable features of this solution are SnapShot, FlexClone, and deduplication."
"The ease of use in terms of how the product works is valuable. We are able to work with it and deploy the storage that we need."
"The FlexClones make all the management easier for us."
"The Cloud Manager application that's on the NetApp cloud site is easy to use. You can set up and schedule replications from there, so you don't have to go into the ONTAP system. Another feature we've recently started using is the scheduled power off. We started with one client and have been slowly implementing it with others. We can cut costs by not having the VM run all the time. It's only on when it's doing replication, but it powers off after."
"The main benefit we get from this product is the ability to deploy it anywhere we want, whether that's on-prem, a remote physical location, or in the cloud. It doesn't matter from an operational perspective where it is. The command line and operating system are the same."
"The failback could be improved. It should be more intuitive."
"The UI could be a little sleeker."
"Sometimes a server will get a bit behind. "
"The user interface, customer support, and the recovery time for the current customer query could use improvement."
"I would like to see better support for creating and working with archives."
"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."
"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."
"I set up a test, deleted the source, and went to fail it back, and it didn't work."
"The automated deployment was a bit complex using the public APIs. When we had to deploy Cloud Volumes ONTAP on a regular basis using automation, It could be a bit of a challenge."
"The data tiering needs improvement. E.g., moving hard data to faster disks."
"Cloud Volumes ONTAP's interface could use an overhaul. Sometimes you have to dig around in Cloud Manager a little bit to find certain things. The layout could be more intuitive."
"Multipathing for iSCSI LUNs is difficult to deal with from the client-side and I'd love to see a single entry point that can be moved around within the cluster to simplify the client configuration."
"We would like to have support for high availability in multi-regions."
"I would like to see better integration with Active IQ."
"They definitely need to stay more on top of security vulnerabilities. Our security team is constantly finding Java vulnerabilities and SQL vulnerabilities. Our security team always wants the latest security update, and it takes a while for NetApp to stay up to speed with that. That would be my biggest complaint."
"The support is good in general but the initial, front-line support could be improved. Because I have already been using the product for so long, when I call support I would rather talk to somebody who is a little bit more advanced or senior, rather than talking to the first-level support. Usually, it takes some time to reach out to their senior support."
More AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is ranked 23rd in Cloud Backup with 11 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 11th in Cloud Backup with 60 reviews. AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is rated 7.4, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. 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 NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is most compared with Azure Site Recovery, AWS Backup, Oracle Data Guard, VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery and Zerto, 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. See our AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP report.
See our list of best Cloud Backup vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Backup 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.
