We performed a comparison between Acronis Disaster Recovery and Nasuni 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."The most valuable features of the product for me are its backup and recovery functionalities."
"Acronis Disaster Recovery has good scalability."
"Performance-wise, it works efficiently for backup and recovery compared to other tools."
"One key feature is it encrypts your data at rest which is really good."
"Our customers use Acronis Disaster Recovery for data backup."
"Patch management, backup, and disaster recovery have been the solution's most valuable features for our data protection strategy."
"The solution can be improved by including a load balancer."
"The backup and recovery options work flawlessly."
"The most valuable feature is the storage in that it only keeps the last-used data locally, while everything else is backed up to the cloud. That way, we never really have to worry about file space in each office or the replication to the other file servers for DR."
"I particularly like the restore process. Our financial teams make changes to spreadsheets and other files, and we've got teams using Photoshop files. They make mistakes and need to recover files, and we can do that instantly. We also have users who manage to delete folders, and we can bring them back instantly within a few seconds."
"I would recommend Nasuni because it's a proven product that has delivered results for us even in the worst-case scenario. If you're still using a traditional cloud solution like native Azure products, you are still susceptible to human error. Also, you would need to architect your backup and DR solutions, then integrate, maintain, and administer them."
"One of Nasuni's best characteristics is its fully redundant system; we don't have to shift tapes or use other backup solutions. It's a good, full-featured product."
"We like Nasuni's snapshot technology. The snapshot and recovery features are the things we use most frequently. Ideally, I would recommend NFS or CFS, which gives you more benefits for clients or anyone who wants to access FTP protocol, FTP utilities, SAN, and MSS."
"The most valuable feature is that we have redundancy in our data. It's nice to know that it is cached both locally on the filters, as well as stored on that cloud."
"We use Nasuni's continuous file versioning feature and it fully protects us. With the ability to version files and have continuous recovery, it helps in terms of resiliency. If we have an incident then we would be able to easily recover from it by using the technology."
"Nasuni has helped to eliminate on-premises infrastructure. We were using about eight to 10 different types of vendors or small storage boxes for provisioning and shared access for users. We got rid of all those. That has eliminated operational overhead and footprint at our data center. We don't have to worry about any hardware or monitoring particular devices, and hundreds of devices have been decommissioned. Now, for provisioning, everything is on Nasuni. I assume this has made a big difference in costs."
"The cost is acceptable."
"Acronis Disaster Recovery should provide software information wherein I can change my setup to collect more information."
"They could provide pricing models considering the requirements of various countries and organizations."
"I wish the Disaster Recovery system could do more, like integrating irregularity features and combining VLP functionalities."
"The documentation can be improved, this would have helped."
"The solution covers specific versions of Windows and Linux, and it would be good if other Linux versions or some special appliances could work in the Acronis Disaster Recovery environment."
"In the future, I would like to see cross-platform support."
"The product should improve compute points."
"The only issue we face with Nasuni is from the performance perspective. Sometimes, when we deploy a Nasuni device, it doesn't meet our requirements. It's a capacity-planning issue."
"The performance monitoring could be improved."
"There is some room for improvement when it comes to monitoring. We are not using Nasuni monitoring. We are using our own monitoring through Xenos. Nasuni can provide better monitoring capabilities for us to monitor all the filers and NMC so that we don't have to use a third-party tool."
"The only thing that I'd like to see is more support for platforms like OneDrive or Box.com."
"The privilege settings need to be more granular, and alerts are an excellent example. If a user doesn't have access to them, they can't see them and access information such as what they may have done wrong, what's there, and when the last sync happened. However, the ability to view alerts also comes with permission to delete them, which is not good, so we need more customization options here."
"The Nasuni file storage platform doesn't work well when there are a high number of small files. This is the case when a directory structure contains more than 10,000 or 20,000 small files, e.g., 5 KB, 10 KB, or 15 KB. When the user is accessing these files from another geographical location, they might face a slow response or timeouts when connecting to the shares, and then to the files. This is because the file size is small. There is a scope of improvement with this solution when it comes to accessing a large number of small files."
"I would like to see Nasuni provide the ability to mirror a Nasuni appliance from one site to another. They could maybe have a standby appliance that is mirrored in a different location for disaster recovery purposes. We can recover if data and a Filer are lost because of a possible ransomware event, but even that takes time to recover. If we had the ability to have a mirrored appliance, we could flip over to that mirrored device and resume instantly rather than repopulate the local appliance with data from the snapshot history in the cloud. This is another feature that we would really like to see, if possible."
"The speed at which new files are created is something that could be improved. For example, if you create a new file in another country, I won't see it for between 10 and 15 minutes."
Acronis Disaster Recovery is ranked 18th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 10 reviews while Nasuni is ranked 8th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 35 reviews. Acronis Disaster Recovery is rated 8.4, while Nasuni is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Acronis Disaster Recovery writes "Easy to implement and provides good features like patch management and disaster recovery". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nasuni writes "We have less downtime and fewer trouble tickets from users who cannot access their shared files". Acronis Disaster Recovery is most compared with Arcserve UDP, Veeam Backup & Replication and Azure Site Recovery, whereas Nasuni is most compared with WekaFS, Panzura, Azure NetApp Files, PeerGFS and Dell PowerScale (Isilon). See our Acronis Disaster Recovery vs. Nasuni 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.
