

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.
However, with AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Service being a native service, integration is seamless, highlighting the return on investment.
The recovery process requires fewer people and much less time, which has saved my organization engineering effort and operational time.
We no longer have to schedule employees on weekends since the system automatically triggers alerts, allowing engineers to respond as needed.
Azure Site Recovery, while being pricier than some providers, has a sufficient service level to justify costs.
Azure Site Recovery is time-saving, and its features allow us to automate processes and save resources.
In case of any issue, they are ready to provide support within the defined SLA timeline.
Helping us in troubleshooting each and every step if we face any issues.
Higher tiers offer faster response time and more direct technical help.
During a global outage that affected our operations, there was no apology or in-depth follow-up from Microsoft.
Microsoft support could be improved as it rates only a five out of ten, with slow response times and a preference for email over phone communication even in severity B cases.
We primarily rely on our Cloud Support Partner for support.
We can expand it to multiple data centers or different areas such as EMEA and APAC.
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is scalable because it can protect and replicate multiple servers and workloads, and it runs on AWS infrastructure.
The scalability is quite good and we were able to scale this service to many of the services that our company uses.
I would rate the scalability of Azure Site Recovery as a nine out of ten.
Scalability is provided because they are offering 99.95% availability.
Azure Site Recovery is a very scalable product and service mechanism.
It is very good and very reliable.
AWS is not difficult, but the cost associated with replicating data to another region can be significant.
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is stable.
The system did go down a couple of times, which impacted our operations.
I would rate the stability of Azure Site Recovery at eight to nine out of ten.
Our RPO improved from approximately three to four hours to less than one minute.
This would detail user activity directly in the ACL console for easier debugging and auditing.
It would be beneficial to get some insights when a disaster happens, including identification and probable solutions to ensure effective recovery.
If their agent version is mismatched and the health status is critical, you will not be able to perform your Azure Site Recovery.
There is room for improvement in the release of patches, such as ensuring they are properly managed to avoid outages.
Currently, Azure Site Recovery does not support shared disk options.
In my case, since the cloud is basically a pay-as-you-go model, we only pay for the replication storage, data transfer, and small staging instances.
Continuous replication minimizes data loss and the cost-efficient staging environment helps reduce infrastructure expenses compared to maintaining a full secondary disaster recovery site.
There is definitely a scope of improvement, and for year-end licensing, they should definitely improve the cost.
It was not the expensive part of our costs.
A major advantage is that you do not want to pay any more for huge costs to build a DR site.
The pricing of Azure Site Recovery is around a four out of ten, being somewhat cost-effective.
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery supports a wide range of source environments, including VMware, Hyper-V, physical servers, and other cloud providers, making it versatile for different IT infrastructures.
The low RPO at a seconds-level replication and a fast recovery with a low RTO provide the most cost-effective way, paying mostly for storage until failover.
Overall, the best combination of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is its near real-time replication and quick recovery testing, and this makes the service very useful in real-world scenarios.
Its time-saving aspects allow us to write PowerShell scripts to automate failover processes.
Azure provides a 99.99% SLA for their uptime, ensuring that even during outages due to patch releases, there is no data loss, merely hindered accessibility.
The most valuable features of Azure Site Recovery are its ease of use and speed of recovery.
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 7 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 5 |
| Large Enterprise | 11 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 9 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 4 |
| Large Enterprise | 14 |
CloudEndure Disaster Recovery enables real-time replication and rapid recovery to enhance organizational resilience. Key features include block-level data replication, ease of use, cost-effectiveness, and automated recovery orchestration. Users benefit from increased efficiency, improved workflows, and enhanced data management, significantly improving organizational performance and business continuity.
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.
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.