Azure Site Recovery Reviews

We use the tool as a backup for our environment. 

The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable. 

I would like to see more security features. 

The product is stable. I would rate its stability a nine out of ten. 

The tool is scalable. There are three users for the solution in my company. 

The product's setup is easy. We require three staff for the tool's deployment. 

The tool's licensing is yearly and not expensive. 

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. It is a powerful solution from Azure. 

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's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability. 

I have been using the product since 2014. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate Azure Site Recovery's scalability a seven out of ten. My company has more than 200 external users and 12 internal ones. 

Azure Site Recovery's tech support is fast and knowledgeable. 

Positive

We did the tool's deployment in-house. 

Azure Site Recovery is affordable. 

You can collaborate with established partners and professionals who have expertise in Azure Site Recovery. Gain knowledge and then implement it. I rate the product an eight out of ten. It is recommended for Microsoft-oriented ecosystems. Non-Microsoft organizations will find the product difficult. 

Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs. 

The tool should improve synchronization. 

I have been using the solution for two weeks. 

Azure Site Recovery is a stable product. 

The solution is a scalable product. My company has three to four users for the product. You need one to two technical resources to handle the deployment. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward and takes around three weeks to complete. 

We did the tool's deployment in-house. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The primary use case of this solution is for disaster recovery. I'm an enterprise architect. 

The product provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery.

I'd like to see more integration with other platforms.  

I've been using this solution for around four or five years. 

This product is very stable. 

The solution is definitely scalable although the level of scalability depends on your country. Not all countries have good capacity.

The initial setup is very straightforward. The product deployment took about a day but the synchronization of the data takes longer. The deployment process involved assessing workloads, integrating the on-prem environment with Azure, sizing the bandwidth, planning for the connectivity and connecting everything up to Azure, and then establishing the base landing zone, the replicas and then replicating the data. We then validated and tested. The implementation requires systems engineers. 

We've seen a marked ROI in the simplifying of processes and reliability. Site recovery is cheaper than building a second data center. 

Licensing costs are consumption-based and although it's not cheap, it's not excessively expensive. 

I recommend this solution for disaster recovery if you're running a production environment that you need to recover very quickly. Whether this solution is suitable for your organization really depends on your business requirements and budget.

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

Customers are interested in utilizing a BI engine for data recovery. While they initially provided their entire recovery, there have been instances where they considered switching to another solution. For certain customers, they opt not to cover the entire hardware or use Cisco cybersecurity, which might not be the case.

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.

I have been using Azure Site Recovery for three years. 

I would rate the stability 8 out of 10. 

It is very scalable. 

Before considering the use of Savavi services, there's an upfront payment requirement for numerous hours. In contrast, with Azure, the costs are more flexible, allowing payment based on actual usage rather than a fixed amount. This approach avoids the need to commit significant funds upfront, making it more cost-effective, especially in cases where the service might not be consistently utilized, ensuring a better return on investment.

It is easy. 

They have a license to pay. 

Overall, I would rate it 8 out of 10. 

We use Azure Site Recovery primarily for disaster recovery to Azure or from Azure, while Veeam is used for data center recovery.

It’s native to Azure and does exactly what it’s designed to do—recover one site to another without creating all the VMs on that site. This helps reduce costs on the secondary site.

I have been using Azure Site Recovery as a partner for two years.

There is no issues with stability.

It is suitable for large enterprises. It is scalable. These businesses have around 500 users. 

Support is wonderful.

It is easy to configure.

It is cost-effective.

The team conducted a thorough analysis before choosing Azure Site Recovery. They likely considered integration costs and various other factors.

It seems to be seamless and is working perfectly. They’re integrating it with Azure Stack Hub, which we’ve also deployed as an on-premises solution.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We back up our site to it and use it for a VR. We are using the most up to date version of this solution.

The most useful thing is that it provides a snapshot of your environment in about 15 minutes. 

It is stable, and it always works. It is also scalable and easy to set up.

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 have been using this solution for three years.

It always works.

It is scalable. Currently, we have only one user who uses it.

I don't work with tech support, but they can have a quicker turnaround on the tech support.

It was pretty straightforward. It was just installing the clients and setting up your site recovery. You can also use the documentation. 

Our network or systems engineer maintains it.

It should have more straightforward billing. The billing was what got funky. It was really cheap. We would pay based on the usage. We paid around $225 a month for site-to-site replication.

The best advice that I could give is to just research what Azure Site Recovery is for. It is not a backup solution. So, even though you have enabled Site Recovery, you still need backups.

I would rate Azure Site Recovery a nine out of ten.

I primarily use Site Recovery to back up our site server.

Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration.

Site Recovery could improve its communication of when new features are available.

I've been using Site Recovery for a year.

I would rate Site Recovery's stability eight out of ten - we've had some issues but only infrequently.

Site Recovery's scalability could be improved.

Microsoft has the best technical support available.

Previously, I used Veaam Backup.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Site Recovery has given us a good return on our investment.

I would recommend Site Recovery for single and larger companies. I would give Site Recovery a rating of eight out of ten.