Arcserve Cloud Direct vs Azure Site Recovery comparison

Arcserve and Microsoft are both solutions in the Disaster Recovery as a Service category. Arcserve is ranked #17, while Microsoft is ranked #3 with an average rating of 7.6. Arcserve holds a 2.4% mindshare in DRS, compared to Microsoft’s 11.7% mindshare. Additionally, 92% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution.

Arcserve Cloud Direct

Read 1 Arcserve Cloud Direct review

726 Views
131 Comparison Views

0% willing to recommend

Azure Site Recovery

Read 26 Azure Site Recovery reviews

2,529 Views
885 Comparison Views

92% willing to recommend

Arcserve Cloud Direct

Azure Site Recovery

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Arcserve Cloud Direct and Azure Site Recovery based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, Commvault, Microsoft and others in Disaster Recovery as a Service.

To learn more, read our detailed Disaster Recovery as a Service Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

Disaster Recovery as a Service

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 885,264 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Arcserve Cloud Direct

Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service

17th

Average Rating

5.0

Reviews Sentiment

5.2

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Cloud Backup (66th)

Azure Site Recovery

Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service

3rd

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2026, in the Disaster Recovery as a Service category, the mindshare of Arcserve Cloud Direct is 2.4%, up from 0.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure Site Recovery is 11.7%, down from 23.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Disaster Recovery as a Service Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Azure Site Recovery	11.7%
Arcserve Cloud Direct	2.4%
Other	85.9%

Disaster Recovery as a Service

Featured Reviews

reviewer1321896

Junior Service Desk Operator at a cloud solution provider with 11-50 employees

Good backup retention but it is not a reliable platform and it doesn't giving any sort of alerts that things are not working

StorageCraft wasn't getting full backup coverage. It was backing up around 1 to 2% of the points. It was not a reliable platform and it wasn't giving any sort of alerts that things were not working. The majority of stuff wasn't backed up, so we really weren't happy with them. That's when we went on the look for a new solution.

Read full review

Ashadeep Parida

IT Manager at NTT DATA

Long-term user praises cost savings and reliability of disaster recovery solutions

There is only one thing to note: the agent has to be up-to-date when SCCM or any third-party tools are doing patching activities. If their agent version is mismatched and the health status is critical, you will not be able to perform your Azure Site Recovery. Recently, I worked with a mass issue related to Recovery Services Vault, and the VM support engineers are taking a lot of time to extend support to the customer. When you raise a call, they wait too long, and even if you request an engineer to set up a call for severity B cases, they are not ready to communicate over the phone, preferring email instead.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"The backup retention was pretty good. Being able to archive users who had been backed up, is a good functionality. Even if they've been deactivated it'll keep the backups and keep them protected."

"The backup retention was pretty good, and being able to archive users who had been backed up is good functionality because even if they've been deactivated it'll keep the backups and keep them protected."

"The most valuable features of Azure Site Recovery are its ease of use and speed of recovery."

"Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data 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."

"It is a very stable product and very scalable."

"The solution is very easy to use."

"We looked at Dell EMC but I think we went with Site Recovery because it fits better with cloud and they're moving a lot of their workload to cloud like Azure, and want something that is seamlessly integrated."

"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."

"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."

More Azure Site Recovery pros

Cons

"StorageCraft wasn't getting full backup coverage. It was backing up around one to 2% of the points."

"StorageCraft wasn't getting full backup coverage. It was backing up around one to 2% of the points. It was not a reliable platform and it wasn't giving any sort of alerts that things were not working."

"we lack a straightforward method to automate the restart of services, which can be quite time-consuming."

"Recently, I worked with a mass issue related to Recovery Services Vault, and the VM support engineers are taking a lot of time to extend support to the customer."

"The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution could be improved."

"The immutable backup could be better."

"Azure Site Recovery does not support shared disk options."

"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."

"It could include more of a backup and recovery."

More Azure Site Recovery cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available

"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."

"Azure Site Recovery is neither very expensive nor very cheap."

"The tool is expensive. What is expensive to me might not be expensive to you. As I mentioned, we seek ways to reduce our costs. If the price goes down, that would be great. I rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten."

"Azure Site Recovery is affordable."

"I'm not sure about the Azure Site Recovery pricing, but my organization gets monthly bills from providers."

"The tool's licensing is yearly and not expensive."

"They have a license to pay."

"Azure Site Recovery is a very reasonably priced product."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery as a Service solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

No data available

Computer Software Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Insurance Company

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	9
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	14

Questions from the Community

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Site Recovery?

A major advantage is that you do not want to pay any more for huge costs to build a DR site. It is very flexible and will save your cost.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Azure Site Recovery?

The flexibility of Azure Site Recovery regarding integration with different IT environments is limited; it is purely an Azure platform service for business continuity, not meant for integration wit...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Azure Site Recovery?

My main use case for Azure Site Recovery is that we are doing cross-region disaster recovery and processing.

See all answers

Comparisons

Veeam Data Cloud for Microsoft 365 vs Arcserve Cloud Direct

Compared 15% of the time

Veritas System Recovery vs Arcserve Cloud Direct

Compared 15% of the time

Veeam Data Platform vs Arcserve Cloud Direct

Compared 15% of the time

Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery vs Arcserve Cloud Direct

Compared 11% of the time

AvePoint Cloud Backup vs Arcserve Cloud Direct

Compared 10% of the time

More Arcserve Cloud Direct Competitors

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs Azure Site Recovery

Compared 12% of the time

Veeam Data Platform vs Azure Site Recovery

Compared 9% of the time

HPE Zerto Software vs Azure Site Recovery

Compared 8% of the time

VMware Live Recovery vs Azure Site Recovery

Compared 7% of the time

Druva Phoenix vs Azure Site Recovery

Compared 3% of the time

More Azure Site Recovery Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Cloud Backup

February 2026

Download Arcserve Cloud Direct product report

Buyer's Guide

Azure Site Recovery

March 2026

Download Azure Site Recovery product report

Also Known As

StorageCraft Cloud Services, StorageCraft Disaster Recovery Services, StorageCraft Cloud Backup, Arcserve Cloud Services, Zetta Cloud Backup

No data available

Overview

Arcserve Cloud Direct offers comprehensive cloud-based backup and recovery services, designed to address the critical data protection needs of enterprises with scalable and efficient solutions.

Arcserve Cloud Direct enables businesses to secure their data seamlessly in the cloud, offering an intuitive platform for backups, disaster recovery, and data management. It meets the demands of businesses looking to protect valuable data assets with ease and reliability. The platform integrates with multiple IT environments, providing flexible data protection without significant infrastructure modifications.

What are the key features of Arcserve Cloud Direct?

Scalable Backup: Allows businesses to adjust storage capacity as needed, offering flexible data protection.
Fast Recovery: Ensures quick data restoration to minimize downtime and operational disruptions.
Centralized Management: Provides a single interface for overseeing multiple backup and recovery operations.

What benefits and ROI can users expect?

Cost Efficiency: Reduces expenses by eliminating the need for costly hardware and maintenance.
Enhanced Security: Offers robust data protection features, safeguarding critical business data against loss.
Improved Reliability: Provides dependable data backup and recovery, ensuring business continuity.

Arcserve Cloud Direct is widely implemented across industries such as healthcare, finance, and manufacturing, where data protection is paramount. It supports regulatory compliance and helps these industries maintain data integrity and availability in a dynamic business environment.

Arcserve

Help your business to keep doing business - even during major IT outages. Azure Site Recovery offers ease of deployment, cost effectiveness, and dependability. Deploy replication, failover, and recovery processes through Site Recovery to help keep your applications running during planned and unplanned outages. Site Recovery is a native disaster recovery as a service (DRaaS), and Microsoft been recognized as a leader in DRaaS based on completeness of vision and ability to execute by Gartner in the 2018 Magic Quadrant for Disaster Recovery as a Service.

Microsoft

Sample Customers

Lion

Russell Reynolds Associates, Union Insurance, Rackspace

Buyer's Guide

Disaster Recovery as a Service

March 2026

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Broadcom, Commvault, Microsoft and others in Disaster Recovery as a Service. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our list of best Disaster Recovery as a Service vendors.

We monitor all Disaster Recovery as a Service 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.