No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Azure Backup vs Carbonite Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 11, 2024

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

Azure Backup
Ranking in Backup and Recovery
17th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
60
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Carbonite Server
Ranking in Backup and Recovery
56th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Backup (44th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Backup and Recovery category, the mindshare of Azure Backup is 1.3%, down from 3.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Carbonite Server is 1.0%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Backup and Recovery Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Azure Backup1.3%
Carbonite Server1.0%
Other97.7%
Backup and Recovery
 

Featured Reviews

Sanjay Sahu - PeerSpot reviewer
Project Manager at Capgemini
Has supported secure data storage with incremental backups and centralized monitoring
Azure Backup supports all the features that we need, so additional features are not an immediate need for me. The documentation for Azure Backup seems okay for me; it is good overall, but it should be more descriptive for each item. It should elaborate more on how backup and restore are fulfilled in different scenarios. One of the reviews indicates that Azure Backup needs improvements for specific backup options beyond just full VM snapshots. I believe it should be improved actually. Regarding specific backup options, I say there should be improvements compared to how they provided them in older days.
CP
Backup, storage and disaster recovery technical specialist at a computer software company with 201-500 employees
A reliable backup product which needs little management
For most technical users the setup and initial deployment are fairly straightforward and once deployed it 99% of the time looks after itself. Installation of the agents is similar to most other products in that it has an install wizard to guide you, the accompanying documentation is also very useful to assist wherever you are in the agent install and policy setup process. Normally our customers' IT team does the deployment of agents, however, this isn't a daunting task unless you are dealing with multiple servers to protect the product. On a server-by-server basis, the deployment doesn't take long. From the MSP side of things, the infrastructure sitting behind the scenes doesn't take too much to install, configure and maintain.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable features are the timely backup facility, allowing scheduling of backups, and the speed at which backups occur."
"The feature that I have found the most valuable is that it is easy to create a backup by using Azure Backup. It also has a good user interface and nice features for sending notifications when any backup fails or there is a change in the status of virtual machines."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Backup is the native backup capabilities."
"I would recommend this solution to other companies because it's an enterprise product that suits all requirements."
"We are happy with this product and have not found any issues while using it."
"This solution allows me to restore either the VM or the data, depending on what is needed."
"It's easy to deploy."
"It's useful, it works, and it's fairly reliable."
"Easy verification of things is the most valuable feature."
"It seems reliable and easy to use."
"Easy verification of things is the most valuable feature."
"Technical support handled all our issues quickly and effectively."
"The advice that I have for people looking into using Carbonite Server is that it seems reliable and easy to use."
"The efficiency and convenience are excellent."
"The Granular Restore of SQL feature has been a lifesaver more times than I can count. One of the main reasons for looking at Carbonite was their support for platforms like AIX and AS/400 Series."
"This solution is very simple to use and I will recommend it to anybody."
 

Cons

"The solution should involve more redundancy types in the backup storage and support open-source OS."
"The only thing I would say that could be improved is the reporting."
"One of the reviews indicates that Azure Backup needs improvements for specific backup options beyond just full VM snapshots. I believe it should be improved actually."
"To make it a ten, it should have the ability to extend the retention and to perform a copy of the data outside of the subscription - with no additional costs."
"The product could improve its performance."
"Microsoft's technical support for Azure products could be improved."
"We faced some issues synchronizing the information in Azure when the storage was changed."
"Azure Backup could improve the backup data copies because they are not immutable."
"In the next release I would like to see an improvement in the auto failover option."
"They do not yet have USB recovery but they are adding it in coming releases."
"The Hyper-V backup has room for improvement."
"The stability has room for improvement."
"It could be a little bit easier or faster to be able to access data files without having to download anything."
"I would like to see an improvement on the management user interface, as well as Kellion integrations."
"When you have to restore it, Carbonite takes a lot of time."
"The support for object storage isn't quite there yet. Its public cloud support can be improved. I would love to see the public cloud support for object storage, and it would be great, but what I always hear from the folks at Carbonite is that in a lot of cases, it directly competes with their cloud offering. So, I don't know when or where that will go or if that will go anywhere, but we are hopeful to see something. The dashboard is a little outdated. If they gave it a facelift and put some better design around their dashboard, that would be tremendous. I generally care less about the visual aesthetics of an application as long as it does what it needed to do, which is true in the case of this solution. We also have the Microsoft 365 platform. Because they're two separate platforms, I have to log in to my Microsoft platform to manage it, and I have to log into my Carbonite server backup platform to manage it. Having these two coexist together in one management console is really what we're looking for, but we went for it knowing this. We also knew that there would be some integration coming down the road. So, we're again hoping to see some of that coming in 2021."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We are paying about $100,000 USD per year, just for a couple of servers."
"The pricing of the solution does not depend on the service itself but rather on the minimum data volume encountered. This pricing approach seems reasonable and is on par with other competitors in the market. It is a good solution for on-premise needs because it is more cost-effective. When evaluating the overall financial expenditure, including operational costs and the impact on the IT team, Azure Backup is a favorable choice."
"It is a bit costly initially, but it is well worth it in the long run, especially for fighting against a number of threats, such as ransomware, which the IT industry is facing."
"It is a very cheap cloud solution."
"The product is neither too expensive nor too cheap."
"The pricing of this solution is ok, but I'm expecting that the price will decrease in the future."
"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."
"This is an expensive solution in the Bangladesh marketplace."
"The solution is open source."
"The pricing is between $120 and $150 per year."
"Its price is reasonable."
"We pay 9,000 dollars per year for our license."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Backup and Recovery solutions are best for your needs.
896,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
Computer Software Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Construction Company
8%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business26
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise24
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise3
Large Enterprise1
 

Questions from the Community

How does Azure Backup differ from Veeam Backup & Replication?
Veeam has a version for Azure but there are organizations, like ours, that are considering moving to an Azure environment and wonder if Azure Backup is better than Veeam Backup and Replication (Vee...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Backup?
The pricing of Azure Backup is fine; it is a low-cost solution.
What needs improvement with Azure Backup?
Azure Backup can be improved by providing an option and a utility so we can restore quickly instead of any manual intervention. Restoration times require manual backup and manual interventions, and...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Carbonite Recover Backup
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Russell Reynolds Associates, Somerset County Council, Kardem, PCL Construction
INLINE Commercial Construction, Hamilton County
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Backup vs. Carbonite Server and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.