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."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."
"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"It is a very stable product and very scalable."
"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."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"Our primary use case is for disaster recovery and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR)."
"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"The implementation of Nakivo made it possible to implement the information security policies currently in force in the company and to meet the statutory requirements in the field of IT security."
"The product is good for protecting very low-budget offices, whereas other solutions fail in terms of cost and footprint of the VMs involved."
"Nakivo Backup and Replication's web-based management interface enables intuitive, rapid, and seamless configuration and management of all backup and recovery functionality across the enterprise."
"The simplicity of installation and the intuitive user interface have made it easy for our team to quickly set up and manage the backups without requiring extensive training."
"It is flexible."
"The user interface is good, and it's user-friendly. I also like its usability with hyper-convergence products like Nutanix and others in the data infrastructure."
"It is fast, simple, powerful, and has a price without competition."
"The features that we like the most are the Backup Copy and Active Directory Integration. They have helped us to save a lot of time since we do not have to make the backup copies “by hand”."
"It could include more of a backup and recovery."
"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."
"Site Recovery's scalability could be improved."
"The tool should improve synchronization."
"Azure Site Recovery's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability."
"Could have more integration with other platforms."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"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."
"While Nakivo delivers comprehensive solutions, there's room for enhancement, particularly regarding Proxmox support."
"We are satisfied with Nakivo, but if anything could be improved, I think it would be more real-time as opposed to email support availability."
"I would love to see compatibility with KVM Backup."
"It would be great if the product could be expanded to support other virtual technologies."
"Integrations maybe helpful for NAKIVO. I think end-to-end backup and user backup will be useful to have. The price could be reduced as well. I also think that AD integration should be more available."
"At the moment I am pleased with what Nakivo does but I would like more reporting functions and if possible, integration with my RMM system."
"Updating VM Tools on a replicated VM could be better."
"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 19 reviews while NAKIVO Backup & Replication is ranked 5th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 85 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, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Commvault Cloud, 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.
