Azure Backup Reviews

Our primary use case is data transformation, specifically moving data from source systems to downstream systems for consumption in reports. For example, we build reports on Power BI or Tableau. This involves designing pipelines, moving data, and monitoring to ensure efficiency and automation with minimal human intervention.

Automation provides us more time to work on other tasks, avoiding repetitive tasks and saving hours that we can allocate elsewhere. This gives more free time for involvement in other activities instead of repetitive data pulling.

The most valuable features are the timely backup facility, allowing scheduling of backups, and the speed at which backups occur.

Currently, I do not have suggestions for improvement because I haven't used it extensively. As I gain more experience with it, I might have suggestions. Also, connection with more legacy data services could be beneficial as some are currently unsupported.

I have been using the solution for around six to eight months.

I have not encountered any stability challenges, and it has been very smooth for me.

Our entire organization utilizes the solution, indicating good scalability, with more than one hundred people using it.

The technical support is somewhat limited and not widely available for self-research, but when contacted, Microsoft has been helpful. I would rate their customer support at eight or eight point five out of ten.

Positive

I did not work with any similar tool before using Azure Backup.

We managed the setup with resourceful self-research and relied on Microsoft's support when needed.

In terms of cost savings and recovery times, there hasn't been a need for recovery yet, but retaining data prevents the need to redesign pipelines, which would involve significant costs.

In terms of setup cost and pricing, Azure Backup provides value for money. It is integrated well with other Microsoft services we use.

We did not evaluate any other options due to deep integration within the Microsoft infrastructure.

I recommend Azure Backup for companies within the Microsoft environment because they can take full advantage of its features. For companies frequently accessing data or not using Microsoft Azure, the solution may not be very helpful.

We use Azure for our application and back end software. Most of our servers are on Azure. We have our fleet management and system tracking, and all the data from our thousands of clients are connected to Azure. We provide each client with their own backup solution to help them with disaster recovery.

Azure Backup has helped us reach needed information wherever we are. The compression features reduce storage costs and allow us to store more data using less space. It significantly lowers costs, especially in cloud-based solutions.

As a cybersecurity company, we value the data encryption and security offered by Azure Backup. 

The encryption, both in transit and at rest, provides additional security against data breaches. Azure Backup is also reliable and scalable, allowing for scalability and different storage options like cold and hot storage. 

The compression features save us money and speed up the backup and restore process.

Azure sometimes provides reliable recovery that can be slow for large-scale scenarios. They can add features that allow quicker recovery for large databases or virtual machines. 

Easier configuration and automation would be helpful for cross-region backups, improving disaster recovery for global operations. Enhancements in reporting and analytics could be beneficial.

I have been working with Azure Backup for around eight or nine years.

The solution is very stable. Over the years, we never had any problems with it.

For scalability, I would rate Azure Backup an 8.5 out of ten. Everything needs to be scalable, and it is important for us.

Azure offers 24/7 support and multiple support plans. It depends on what you choose. If you choose the basic, it's limited. 

We've been satisfied because we provide our own support. I understand that if you choose premium support, Azure can dedicate resources for you.

Positive

I tried AWS and Google, however, we have been with Microsoft for more than 18 years. AWS has limited support, which is a problem for me as a consultant.

The setup process can be challenging for someone new or with minimal technical background. However, Microsoft has simplified its interface. The backup interface with the Azure portal is user-friendly, with a wizard guide system. 

Complexity can arise when connecting to databases, but the wizard simplifies the process.

Pricing is middle plus, and it's a bit high. We always wait for prices to reduce, however, Azure sometimes offers special discounts or packages if you commit for more years.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) Backup is a competitor. AWS is good for heavy environments but lacks support compared to Azure.

Reporting and analytics improvements with AI technology would be helpful. The setup process is brief and user-friendly with clear steps at each stage.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

My company uses Azure Backup for its multiple customers. My company uses the solution for both SAP and non-SAP workloads. The solution works fantastic since we have not faced any issues. My company uses the solution as a backup tool for files and folders. We also used the solution in our company as a VM-level backup and backup storage device.

The solution's most valuable feature stems from how Azure manages redundancy. We have a cross-region backup also enabled in my company, because of which, in case of disaster, we have a replica available in another data center. The aforementioned feature makes it a fantastic tool. Another great future of the product is encryption supported by the solution to get the backup for any virtual machine or disk encrypted in our company. Both the aforementioned features are its most wonderful and coolest features.

My company faces a lot of difficulties in restoring any encrypted VM backup. Some user-friendly automation solutions should be provided in the Azure portal to help us when we try to restore any encrypted virtual machine or disk to avoid complexities during the restoration process.

I have been using Azure Backup for four to five years. My company functions as a managed service provider to the end users of Azure Backup.

It is a stable solution.

It is a highly scalable solution.

My company deals with medium and enterprise-sized customers of Azure Backup.

The technical support part is handled by third-party vendors with a V-dash account. Depending on where our company gets support from, we do not occasionally get the correct response at the correct time. My company does get a proper response when connected directly to the support from Microsoft and not to any third-party vendor.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

Neutral

I don't directly use Veeam in my company. One of my company's customers uses Veeam as a backup for their virtual machines, so my company is in the process of helping that customer migrate from Veeam to Azure Backup.

The initial setup of Azure Backup is easy.

The solution can be deployed in ten to fifteen minutes.

The number of people required for the deployment depends upon the number of virtual machines that must be onboarded in the backup. Ideally, a person or two can easily manage the backup solution of an enterprise-level customer.

Considering the fact that our company's enterprise-sized customers use the solution, the product's price is fine and is not on the higher side of the spectrum.

Azure Backup can be maintained easily by one or two people.

I would tell those planning to use the solution that it is a user-friendly product. Azure Backup is a durable and scalable solution that has added an interesting feature to itself by supporting the backup functionalities for the SAP HANA Database.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

We're using it as a native tool for VM-level backup.

When it comes to Azure Backup, the advantage is that it's native and it's very easy to configure. We don't require a separate tool or manage something on a separate server. At the backend, it's managed by Microsoft itself, and we don't need to manage it. 

In Avamar, the file-based restores are very quick and fast, whereas, in Azure Backup, VM restore is super easy, but if I have to do a file or a folder restore, I have to mount the entire VM image. I have to wait for some time for it to be mounted, and then I have to go inside and then check the file and copy it somewhere. It's a bit of a manual process, whereas in Avamar, you can directly select a file and folder, and it'll recover with whatever permissions you want. That's better in Avamar, and that's the only thing that's lacking in Azure. File or folder recovery is complex and time-consuming.

I've been working with Azure Backup for two years.

There is no separate tool, so there is no issue with stability. If the Avamar server goes down, all the backups will fail, whereas, in the case of Azure Backup, there is no separate tool. If there is any issue with a particular server, only that backup will fail, but there is no single point of failure in Azure Backup, which is not the case with Avamar because it has to rely on a server. I'd rate Azure Backup a ten out of ten in terms of stability.

I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of scalability because there is no limit. You can configure as many backups as you like. There is no limitation on storage space because it's not a separate tool. It goes to the Azure backend. They are managing it, so there is no storage limit. It's completely scalable.

The level-one support is not that good, but it's slightly better than Avamar. I'd rate them a five out of ten.

Neutral

We also use Avamar, but that can only take a file-level backup for the VMs in Azure. For a VM-level backup, we have to use a native Azure tool.

With Avamar, we have to manage the Avamar server, whereas we don't need to manage the Azure server. We just directly configure the backup of each server, and we don't have to worry about the maintenance of the tool because it's inherently native to the Azure portal. That's the biggest advantage.

I'd rate its setup a ten out of ten in terms of ease because you don't need to read anything to configure it. It's super easy like filling out a form.

The number of people required for its deployment depends on how many devices we need to configure. If we're migrating a big enterprise with hundreds or thousands of servers, we would require two or three people to manage it.

The deployment duration depends on the migration timelines. Generally, 300 or 400 can be configured in one day because it's centralized. There is a checkbox to select everything and put it once the other policy is created.

It comes with a total package of VMs and other things, so it's a bit difficult to distinguish between just the backup cost because it's an all-in-one cost. I don't manage the billing. There is a separate team that manages the billing. Overall, its cost is better because the VMs are already there, and whatever you back up, there is only the additional cost of that storage, whereas if I have to use Avamar in Azure, a separate cost is there for the Avamar server, and in addition, whatever I take as a backup, there is a separate license with Avamar for that. So, there is a double cost if we have to use Avamar in the cloud.

It's pretty easy. When you do the AZ-900 or AZ-104 course, you will understand most of it, whereas, in the case of Avamar, there is no training shared for free.

Overall, I'd rate Azure Backup an eight out of ten.

The product is used for disaster recovery. We worked for a bank that needed disaster recovery. The bank was using a VMware solution. They also had some critical virtual machines. So, we deployed the solution for them.

The tool has a lot of features. It is really useful.

We faced some issues synchronizing the information in Azure when the storage was changed. We have to troubleshoot a lot. We do not know the reason for the issue.

I use the solution in my organization.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. Only three to four companies use the solution in our region.

Our customers contact the support team to troubleshoot their issues.

I have used Nutanix. There was a big difference in the cost of Nutanix and Azure. Azure has a pay-as-you-go model. Azure is better than Nutanix.

The initial setup was straightforward. It is a cloud solution. We download the agent and scan for the VMs on-premise. Then, we connect the on-premise server with Azure. Later, we do the network and storage configuration.

We save money because we do not need a data center. We pay only for storage, and it is not very expensive.

The product is not expensive. We just pay for the storage. The storage is not expensive.

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

Azure Backup is best suited for people who have their workloads on Azure. 80% of the use case is for people using compute instances or compute capacity on Azure.

There is a smaller use case for people who want scalable storage, which some can scale up and down, even though their workloads may not be in Azure and maybe a data center workload instead. Azure backup is a good solution if one needs scalable workloads on a cost-effective platform. Those are two primary use cases.

Azure lets you classify your backups as per the user, such as if they are archival backups or if it is something you need to use on a more frequent basis. You can select the tiering for your backup and manage your cost. It's not one single monolithic cost. You can choose your backup storage requirement and choose your storage tiering. And then, of course, you can get a more cost-effective backup at the end of the day. As you move into more cloud-native solutions, which means cloud-native applications developed on and for the cloud, your allocation or backup configuration becomes much more seamless. Moreover, the integrity of your backups is retained without you needing to manually check them. And then configuring your backups integrating your backups is almost seamless for your cloud-native application.

It still does not have a lot of customization, especially if your workloads are not in Azure. More and more customers are looking at hybrid solutions when they have something on Azure, a data center, and a private cloud. Your backup solution may not be customizable enough to suit your requirements when you have a hybrid environment. If it's completely Azure, Azure Backup is an excellent solution. However, there are better alternatives when discussing a multi-cloud or hybrid-cloud solution.

In addition, Though not in my personal opinion or experience, certain security and compliance questions have been raised around Azure, and that's where Azure needs to buckle down as well.

I've worked with the solution for five to six years.

The product is stable. We have not seen any concerns or issues with stability.

There are some medium-based clients, but the bulk of our clients are enterprise clients.

Azure's technical support is good, but there is always room for improvement. It's much better than its competitors.

Positive

Azure Backup is pretty simple to deploy if your applications are hosted on Azure. And the more cloud-native services you use, the easier it is to deploy. The closer you are to Azure's native environment, the easier it gets. It's almost seamless. It's just about checking a few boxes, and it's done. The complexities come in when you are in a hybrid environment.

The time taken to deploy the solution depends upon your backup policy. At most, deploying would not take more than a few minutes. Configuring the backup policies will take time, but actual deployment takes minutes.

Azure Backup is simpler to maintain compared to an on-prem backup. It's a managed service from Azure. With a backup solution, the important thing is to check your daily, weekly, and monthly schedule and the integrity of backups. That's the most time-consuming part, but all that gets highly automated in Azure.

Azure Backup can be expensive if you are not vigilant about your storage steering. You need to monitor your usage. After your backup, your data goes into your storage solution, and the storage can escalate. It should be actively monitored and managed. Otherwise, Azure Backup can get very pricey. But the solution can be very cost-effective if you are smart and have the right governance. Looking at the long term and your usage fluctuates over time, it becomes a much more cost-effective option.

With Azure backup, there is an on-premises option using your Azure Stack, but my experience on that is limited since I deal with Azure cloud-based backups.

If anyone plans to adopt Azure Backup, first understand your backup requirements. Especially if you operate in a multi-regional environment if your workloads are spread over multiple regions and subscriptions, it makes sense to have a cloud-based backup on Azure, especially if you operate in a multi-regional environment. That helps you scale out as required and simplifies the deployment of web-based or Azure-native applications. The word of caution is to be vigilant about your backup consumption and be proactive in choosing the right tier so that it remains cost-effective for you.

I rate Azure Backup an eight out of ten. The solution is great with cloud-native applications. But if you go into a hybrid environment or a multi-cloud environment, that's when there are complexities. Moreover, you need to be vigilant about what you're using. Otherwise, the cost can spiral out of control.

With Azure Backup, you can readily make your environment if your setup somehow fails on the cloud or on-premises. You can immediately get your system from the backups within five or ten minutes.

While Azure Backup allows ingress data, the egress data is chargeable, which should be excluded. Our clients mostly complain that taking a backup with Azure Backup is free, but retrieving the backup from Azure is chargeable.

It is easy to back up small data and run your system in Azure Backup. After your system is ready, you have to sync your system with Azure Backup, which costs more. There are two segments of people. One segment is happy because they got the emergency recovery of their system. They mention that they feel better if they have to pay for the backup or the egress data because their system is okay. Some people are unhappy because their backup is available, but they have to pay for it. Only a small portion (around 20-30 %) of people fall into this segment, but most are happy.

I have been using Azure Backup for almost more than five years.

The solution's stability and performance are good, except for an issue with its servers.

Azure Backup is a scalable solution.

The problem with technical support is the same for all Microsoft products. Azure Backup's technical support team responds well to severe cases. Their response is too much slow for a non-severe case due to being overwhelmed by severe cases. The support team rarely responds to less severe cases; sometimes, it takes two or three days for them to respond. The support team complies with the SLA for severe cases, but sometimes they fail to do it.

Neutral

Azure Backup has the most user-friendly interface compared to AWS, Google Workspace, or Google Cloud. The Azure platform is much easier to work with than AWS and Google Cloud.

The setup for insight cloud backup is easy. However, site recovery from on-premise to the cloud can be tough because we have to set a lot of parameters.

The initial syncing process is tough in case of site recovery. However, it performs better once your system is synced. It is difficult in specific situations, like if you stop syncing, if storage is full, or if your on-premises server storage is full. The initial setup is difficult for site recovery and backup. It becomes easy once the initial backup is completed.

We strongly recommend to our clients that if they already have a primary backup system, it is advisable to complement it with a cloud or secondary backup for added safety. This is crucial because your backup could crash at any moment due to malware. We recommend all our partners and clients have a cloud backup.

We advise our clients to keep a backup on Azure Backup Cloud. We suggest financial organizations keep a tertiary backup. It would be helpful if the solution introduced a reserve system for backup. The clients would only pay for storage and backup service price. They need to reduce prices so that more people would use cloud backup.

Although some customers already have an on-premises backup for their environment, offering a slightly lower price and the option for one-year and three-year reserve systems may draw more people to opt for secondary backup on the cloud.

Overall, I rate Azure Backup an eight and a half out of ten.

Our company was facing a lot of difficulties maintaining the servers, and we did not have a solid backup solution. So, we moved to Azure.

The product is very reliable and easy to use. Microsoft tools are very user-friendly.

The product could improve its performance.

I used the solution in my previous organization for about two years.

The tool had stability issues. The support team took care of it.

The tool is easily scalable since it is cloud-based. Around 1500 people were using the solution in our organization.

The support was superb. Whenever we had any issues, we called the support team.

Positive

The installation was easy. We took two to three months to deploy the solution. We had to plan since we had a lot of servers.

We had a partner who assisted us in installing the solution. We had a SPOC who was taking care of everything. We required two or three people on the back end to deploy the product. The partner assisted us, and we did the planning and strategy. The solution was easy to maintain. We needed two people to maintain it.

The product is neither too expensive nor too cheap. It is moderately priced. We pay a monthly subscription fee for the solution. We have to pay additionally for the ticket cost for support. We also have to pay for any extra services that we avail.

The solution is neither better nor worse than other products. It is on the cloud, so we don't have any backup appliances on-premises. The drawback is that it relies on network bandwidth and other factors for recovery. If we had a backup appliance on-premise, it would be easy to recover.

We had branch offices in India, headquarters in Hong Kong, and multiple offices in Singapore, the UK, and the US. All the branches were using Azure.

People who want a purely cloud-based solution can use the product. People who want a hybrid solution must consider other vendors. Though Azure has secondary data on the cloud, it still recommends using some third-party tools like Veeam and Commvault. Having data on Azure and backup data on another third-party vendor is fair enough.

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