Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs Teradata comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Apr 20, 2025

Review summaries and opinions

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

ROI

Sentiment score
7.3
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery offers cost-effective integration and protection, reducing downtime and expenses without needing additional hardware.
Sentiment score
8.1
Teradata boosts analytics speed over 100%, enhancing customer service and satisfaction, with high ROI and user approval.
However, with AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Service being a native service, integration is seamless, highlighting the return on investment.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
8.0
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery receives praise for excellent customer service, effective issue resolution, and timely enterprise-level support.
Sentiment score
7.1
Teradata's customer service is praised for expertise but criticized for delays, with ratings ranging from 6 to 10 out of 10.
In case of any issue, they are ready to provide support within the defined SLA timeline.
The technical support from Teradata is quite advanced.
Customer support is very good, rated eight out of ten under our essential agreement.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.9
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is praised for adaptability and scalability, with positive feedback on data replication and performance consistency.
Sentiment score
7.4
Teradata is praised for its scalability, speed, and flexibility, despite some complexity and cost challenges in cloud environments.
This expansion can occur without incurring downtime or taking systems offline.
Scalability is complex as you need to purchase a license and coordinate with Teradata for additional disk space and CPU.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is stable and reliable, despite occasional server issues and concerns over high data replication costs.
Sentiment score
8.4
Teradata excels in stability with minimal downtime, robust architecture, 99.9% uptime, and reliable performance, despite minor large dataset issues.
It is very good and very reliable.
AWS is not difficult, but the cost associated with replicating data to another region can be significant.
I find the stability to be almost a ten out of ten.
The workload management and software maturity provide a reliable system.
 

Room For Improvement

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery needs enhanced UI, automation, issue logging, and affordability, with desired AI-driven features and streamlined processes.
Teradata users seek better transaction processing, enhanced scalability, modern interface, cloud focus, advanced analytics, and improved support and documentation.
This would detail user activity directly in the ACL console for easier debugging and auditing.
In AWS Disaster Recovery Service, these details are not available, making it difficult to check my replication status.
Unlike SQL and Oracle, which have in-built replication capabilities, we don't have similar functionality with Teradata.
 

Setup Cost

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery provides flexible tiered pricing, but cumulative costs and inflexible contracts can be drawbacks for some users.
Teradata's high cost is justified by its superior performance, competitive total ownership costs, and flexible pricing models.
Initially, it may seem expensive compared to similar cloud databases, however, it offers significant value in performance, stability, and overall output once in use.
Teradata is much more expensive than SQL, which is well-performed and cheaper.
 

Valuable Features

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery offers seamless, reliable, and cost-effective cloud replication, ensuring protection, scalability, and security for critical workloads.
Teradata offers efficient, scalable data management with fast query performance, robust security, automation, and cloud flexibility for businesses.
AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Service is a native service, integration is seamless.
The data mover is valuable over the last two years as it allows us to achieve data replication to our disaster recovery systems.
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery
Ranking in Backup and Recovery
26th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Backup (19th), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (14th)
Teradata
Ranking in Backup and Recovery
20th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
76
Ranking in other categories
Customer Experience Management (6th), Data Integration (17th), Relational Databases Tools (7th), Data Warehouse (3rd), BI (Business Intelligence) Tools (10th), Marketing Management (6th), Cloud Data Warehouse (6th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Backup and Recovery category, the mindshare of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Teradata is 0.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Backup and Recovery
 

Featured Reviews

Vijay Londhe - PeerSpot reviewer
Managed services with seamless integration and good reliability
Since I have to view everything on the console, the previous application solutions like IBM and Sanavi showed the RPO and RTO status directly. In AWS Disaster Recovery Service, these details are not available, making it difficult to check my replication status. I have to calculate whether my data is replicated to the Adarabad region or not. These features, if available in AWS, would be beneficial.
SurjitChoudhury - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers seamless integration capabilities and performance optimization features, including extensive indexing and advanced tuning capabilities
We created and constructed the warehouse. We used multiple loading processes like MultiLoad, FastLoad, and Teradata Pump. But those are loading processes, and Teradata is a powerful tool because if we consider older technologies, its architecture with nodes, virtual processes, and nodes is a unique concept. Later, other technologies like Informatica also adopted the concept of nodes from Informatica PowerCenter version 7.x. Previously, it was a client-server architecture, but later, it changed to the nodes concept. Like, we can have the database available 24/7, 365 days. If one node fails, other nodes can take care of it. Informatica adopted all those concepts when it changed its architecture. Even Oracle databases have since adapted their architecture to them. However, this particular Teradata company initially started with its own different type of architecture, which major companies later adopted. It has grown now, but initially, whatever query we sent it would be mapped into a particular component. After that, it goes to the virtual processor and down to the disk, where the actual physical data is loaded. So, in between, there's a map, which acts like a data dictionary. It also holds information about each piece of data, where it's loaded, and on which particular virtual processor or node the data resides. Because Teradata comes with a four-node architecture, or however many nodes we choose, the cost is determined by that initially. So, what type of data does each and every node hold? It's a shared-no architecture. So, whatever task is given to a virtual processor it will be processed. If there's a failure, then it will be taken care of by another virtual processor. Moreover, this solution has impacted the query time and data performance. In Teradata, there's a lot of joining, partitioning, and indexing of records. There are primary and secondary indexes, hash indexing, and other indexing processes. To improve query performance, we first analyze the query and tune it. If a join needs a secondary index, which plays a major role in filtering records, we might reconstruct that particular table with the secondary index. This tuning involves partitioning and indexing. We use these tools and technologies to fine-tune performance. When it comes to integration, tools like Informatica seamlessly connect with Teradata. We ensure the Teradata database is configured correctly in Informatica, including the proper hostname and properties for the load process. We didn't find any major complexity or issues with integration. But, these technologies are quite old now. With newer big data technologies, we've worked with a four-layer architecture, pulling data from Hadoop Lake to Teradata. We configure Teradata with the appropriate hostname and credentials, and use BTEQ queries to load data. Previously, we converted the data warehouse to a CLD model as per Teradata's standardized procedures, moving from an ETL to an EMT process. This allowed us to perform gap analysis on missing entities based on the model and retrieve them from the source system again. We found Teradata integration straightforward and compatible with other tools.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Backup and Recovery solutions are best for your needs.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user232068 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 5, 2015
Netezza vs. Teradata
Original published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-i-choose-net Two leading Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) architectures for Data Warehousing (DW) are IBM PureData System for Analytics (formerly Netezza) and Teradata. I thought talking about the similarities and differences…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
12%
Healthcare Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
26%
Computer Software Company
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CloudEndure Disaster Recovery?
CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is a fairly stable solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudEndure Disaster Recovery?
The setup is actually managed by our partner. I have taken a rate of per user. Licensing is completely managed by the partner. I am paying per user and per GB storage cost, while the infrastructure...
What needs improvement with CloudEndure Disaster Recovery?
In its current state, ECL integrates with CloudWatch for basic logging and monitoring, yet improvements could include more detailed logs for specific actions, like when I perform actions such as pu...
Comparing Teradata and Oracle Database, which product do you think is better and why?
I have spoken to my colleagues about this comparison and in our collective opinion, the reason why some people may declare Teradata better than Oracle is the pricing. Both solutions are quite simi...
Which companies use Teradata and who is it most suitable for?
Before my organization implemented this solution, we researched which big brands were using Teradata, so we knew if it would be compatible with our field. According to the product's site, the comp...
Is Teradata a difficult solution to work with?
Teradata is not a difficult product to work with, especially since they offer you technical support at all levels if you just ask. There are some features that may cause difficulties - for example,...
 

Also Known As

CloudEndure Disaster Recovery
IntelliFlex, Aster Data Map Reduce, , QueryGrid, Customer Interaction Manager, Digital Marketing Center, Data Mover, Data Stream Architecture
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Agio, Cloud Nation, Limelight Networks
Netflix
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs. Teradata and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
850,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.