Azure Backup Reviews

Like any backup product, we use Azure Backup to have a secure backup and restore it. Azure backup itself is provisioned on the Azure portal with the Azure products. We are a gold partner with Microsoft, and we use all Microsoft products in our enterprise.

Azure Backup is easy to configure and restore. You can use Azure Backup to backup on-premises servers as well.

The solution’s user interface could be improved and made better. Microsoft would declare a support issue as an application-level issue because there is no differentiation at the user level, and they won't restore.

I have been using Azure Backup for the last 5 years.

We had some issues in the past with the solution's stability.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven out of ten.

Our company has around 70,000 employees, and over 200 VMs are currently used for data backup.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for scalability.

Microsoft's support needs to zero down the specialist because they have a different expert at every component level. When you try to reach them, they will just pass it on to a different team every time, which takes a long time. In case of a major incident, it's really scary to wait long to get the exact technical expert to work on it.

Neutral

The solution’s initial setup is simple.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team.

Azure Backup is a moderately priced solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive and ten is cheap, I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten.

I would recommend Azure Backup to other users.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven 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.

The principal use cases of the solution are attached to SQL databases and virtual machines.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed of the recovery tasks.

I have been using Azure Backup for six years. My company is a customer and has a partnership with Microsoft.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

With Azure Backup, I have not had to deal with any issues like bugs or breaking down.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. I don't have any issues related to the product's scalability.

Around 90 people in my organization use the solution.

Previously, in our company, we used a different solution before going ahead with Azure Backup. The reason my company chose Azure Backup was because of the simplicity it offered.

I don't know if the product's setup phase is easy or difficult since I am not involved in the setup process. I am only responsible for the team that carries out the steps related to the product's setup phase in our organization.

Azure Backup is a product that is priced at a cheap rate, and it is a great tool. The product is worth the money you pay for it.

The solution's features are enough to meet our company's use cases.

Whether I recommend the solution to others or not is something that depends on the necessity of those who plan to use it. I recommend the solution to those who have a simple infrastructure.

I rate the overall solution a nine 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.

The main use case is to back up my on-premises machines, essentially resembling the traditional backup software that has been included with Windows operating systems for the past three decades. In this specific case, it's a cloud-based solution. This cloud-based backup service also offers regional redundancy. For instance, if you're using the South UK region as your primary location for backups, you have the option to mirror your backups to another designated region. In the past, this secondary region used to be highly customizable, but now specific regions are designated as partners. For instance, Western North Europe may be a partner region. This means you are constrained to using specific partner regions for redundancy. If the primary region encounters issues, the secondary region will seamlessly take over the backup load.

It is a functional backup solution. One of its standout features is similar to the "Recycle Bin" on your Windows Explorer desktop but for your backups. You have the flexibility to encrypt your backups and choose the storage capacity you're comfortable paying for. It empowers you to create virtual machines that scan your network and assume the administrative tasks related to backup. This means you can easily configure backups between different machines, similar to what you can do with vSphere in VMware, where automation takes care of administering your machines. These capabilities extend beyond just Hyper-V and also cover Mobile Device Management (MDM).

When attempting to back up encrypted files and later restore them to another location, it's essential to configure your service principal names. Many Windows administrators are familiar with this and handle it manually. It would be beneficial to receive alert messages if something isn't configured correctly, for instance, if service principal names are missing, a message could prompt you to set them up. This is a common challenge shared by various backup programs and administrators who are unaware of these requirements tend to overlook them, rendering encrypted file restores impossible. It is essential to test the restore functionality to ensure it works as expected. Also, having configuration assistance with quality of service features would be valuable for administrators. This would allow administrators to allocate resources effectively, deciding how much bandwidth to assign to different backup tasks. An upcoming feature, that appears promising, is the platform connectivity feature. This feature will apply to various types of networks, including video networks and other backup networks. It would be great to see a similar capability integrated into Azure Backup in the future.

I have been working with it for five years.

The customer support is truly exceptional. I've had the opportunity to experience support from Cisco, which is renowned for its top-tier service. In comparison, Microsoft's support is right up there, coming in as a close second. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

I have some experience, but I am not actively utilizing Veeam anymore. I've found Azure Backup to be quite satisfactory for my needs. Some of my clients still prefer Veeam. It's worth noting that the terminology and concepts in these backup solutions are very similar. Veeam is often considered more user-friendly, but it comes at a higher cost. With Azure Backup, you primarily pay for storage. It may seem like a marketing strategy by Microsoft, but it's important to understand that the cost of the backup service itself is bundled into the storage pricing.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward. You just need to follow the instructions provided, which are usually quite clear. Whether you're selecting Hyper-V or a barebone machine, the instructions are generally easy to understand. The only potential challenge I've encountered is with download links when you need to install an agent. When it comes to the backup processes themselves, I haven't faced any significant issues. All of my students have been able to follow the instructions, which speaks to the product's usability and reliability.

In terms of ROI, it has proven to be quite successful for my specific needs, and it is incredibly cost-effective. I am quite satisfied with it.

It is incredibly cost-effective and offers fixed pricing, with no additional fees for the licensing.

As with any backup software, it's crucial to thoroughly test the recovery process to ensure it functions as intended. Sometimes, the issue might simply be forgetting to configure your service principal names (SPNs). SPNs can be somewhat similar to DNS names. When you enter "Google.com," you expect to receive an IP address. Similarly, when dealing with service principal names, you specify the HTTP or another service on a particular machine and expect to validate it with a certificate. It is an essential step that should not be overlooked. If these configurations are forgotten, it could result in backups that cannot be restored, which is far from ideal. Therefore, rigorous testing is essential to validate the effectiveness of your backup strategy. Overall, I would rate it 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.

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.