We performed a comparison between AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Azure Site Recovery 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."It's on the cheaper side and not too expensive for users."
"The initial setup is really straightforward."
"For regular backup and restore solutions, this product is fine."
"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."
"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."
"It provides our disaster recovery solution. It works fine in our tests."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"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."
"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 documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"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 failback could be improved. It should be more intuitive."
"The bandwidth is a constant upload communication to the AWS DR environment, so if you do not have the proper bandwidth, it will definitely eat up your internet line."
"The UI could be a little sleeker."
"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."
"I have not seen any areas that need improvement at this time."
"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."
"The solution's network setup and a lot of the control tower setup could be improved."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"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."
"Could have more integration with other platforms."
"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."
"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."
"The support team took a lot of time to respond and was not very professional."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
More AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Pricing and Cost Advice →
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is ranked 17th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 11 reviews while Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews. AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is rated 7.4, while Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2. 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 Azure Site Recovery writes "Useful for restoration purposes that ensures that the users get to save a lot of time". AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is most compared with AWS Backup, Oracle Data Guard, VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery, Zerto and Veeam Backup & Replication, whereas Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, Commvault Cloud and VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery. See our AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs. Azure Site Recovery 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.