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

Azure Site Recovery vs OpenText Recover​ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Site Recovery
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
Disaster Recovery as a Service (3rd)
OpenText Recover​
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (26th)
 

Featured Reviews

RituparnaBhattacharya - PeerSpot reviewer
The time-saving aspects allow us to write PowerShell scripts to automate failover processes
First of all, we initially faced a challenge as Azure Site Recovery was not supporting shared disk options on SQL clusters with VMs, which are important for a Windows cluster mode. Additionally, the setup is quite easy, only requiring the creation of a vault. Its time-saving aspects allow us to write PowerShell scripts to automate failover processes.
Rias Majeed - PeerSpot reviewer
Allows you to test and schedule recovery tasks for multiple sites
The main weakness of Carbonite Recover is the fallback process, which can be time-consuming. However, the failover process works well when done properly. Similar to other software programs, there was a technical issue involving duplicates and small glitches. Over time, Carbonite recovery has improved. When I started working with Cyber, we had to double-check everything, and although it was challenging, the downtime wasn't extensive—one incident in a year, for example. Restoring data with Carbonite Recover can take time, mainly because the backup process occurs in real time. The main concern is the duration needed to restore data to the primary environment, which can be lengthy. However, once the failover is complete, there are no further issues.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"Azure Site Recovery allows my company to save around 30 percent of the time on every VM that we need to back up and restore."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"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 secure, reliable, and scalable."
"We confirm the server failure before initiating recovery. Once started, this process takes half an hour to an hour, though it can be as fast as 15 minutes. After bringing up the server, we test connectivity to ensure everything is operational."
 

Cons

"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 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 with other services."
"The tool should improve synchronization."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"When it runs, it runs well but when it doesn't run, the solution needs to make it clearer as to why and what the troubleshooting process is. All this would be possible if the error logging was streamlined a bit."
"The system did go down a couple of times, which impacted our operations. For stability, I would rate it a seven out of ten."
"Currently, Azure Site Recovery does not support shared disk options. Moreover, it does not support services like AppConfig or App Services."
"The immutable backup could be better."
"The main weakness of Carbonite Recover is the fallback process, which can be time-consuming. However, the failover process works well when done properly. Similar to other software programs, there was a technical issue involving duplicates and small glitches."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I'm not sure about the Azure Site Recovery pricing, but my organization gets monthly bills from providers."
"Azure Site Recovery is affordable."
"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 a very reasonably priced product."
"Azure Site Recovery is neither very expensive nor very cheap."
"The tool's licensing is yearly and not expensive."
"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."
"They have a license to pay."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions are best for your needs.
870,623 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business8
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise14
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Azure Site Recovery?
Azure Site Recovery allows my company to save around 30 percent of the time on every VM that we need to back up and restore.
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.
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...
What needs improvement with Carbonite Recover?
The main weakness of Carbonite Recover is the fallback process, which can be time-consuming. However, the failover process works well when done properly. Similar to other software programs, there w...
What is your primary use case for Carbonite Recover?
Carbonite Recover is an effective tool for testing and scheduling recovery tasks for multiple sites, whether they have primary servers or virtual machines. You can schedule jobs for recovery at the...
What advice do you have for others considering Carbonite Recover?
Carbonite Recover is a downtime reduction solution that minimizes the time employees cannot work. Carbonite Recover can accurately measure how much potential productivity or revenue is saved per ho...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Russell Reynolds Associates, Union Insurance, Rackspace
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Veeam Software, Commvault and others in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software. Updated: October 2025.
870,623 professionals have used our research since 2012.