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

Azure Site Recovery vs Druva Phoenix comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 14, 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 Site Recovery
Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service
3rd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Druva Phoenix
Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Backup (29th), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (17th), SaaS Backup (9th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Disaster Recovery as a Service category, the mindshare of Azure Site Recovery is 23.2%, down from 23.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Druva Phoenix is 3.5%, up from 2.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Disaster Recovery as a Service
 

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.
Ratnodeep Roy - PeerSpot reviewer
Patch-based system, offers network flexibility but Logs are not very informative for regular users
The ransomware features are limited in Druva. There's a lot of improvement needed. It should extend to Nutanix and Hyper-V. It should extend to Azure as well. A lot of people are looking for ransomware scans, but Druva doesn't support them. Veeam barely supports them over Azure Virtual Machines. It doesn't support Linux Virtual Machines. NetApp and Commvault don't have such features. Acronis is also limited. In Azure, you have Azure Defender, but that works extensively on cloud storage, not on the servers. So, backup companies like Druva need to work a lot on ransomware protection and detection. These companies need to work a lot on ransomware detection, protection and more. Ransomware protection doesn't work in this hash-based transfer mirroring. If I only have to find this hash and feed it to the Druva end. It's sometimes not possible. It will struggle when the workloads are more than a hundred machines. It's not possible to find the hash of each file and provide it to Druva. So, this needs to be fully automated. If I were scanning with some technology, maybe signature-based scanning, behavioral-based, or keyword-based scanning. I can put this FHA, maybe SIEMs as well. But Druva is very limited. It's already in an active stage. I don't like that they don't extend all the features to all the workloads. These features are minimal compared to those of its competitors. For instance, I have one customer who was looking for Druva, but since they have Azure machines, they couldn't find a way to restore a particular file. Druva doesn't provide Azure virtual machine single file restore. It doesn't make sense to build a product and then it doesn't support it. Customers really struggle. Some customers tried Druva so that they don't have to think about setting up a separate network, but Druva is making things critical by not providing all the things at once and gradually releasing them. It's been more than six months or one year since they started their virtual machines, but there is no single file restore. Every time you have to restore the VM, and then from there, you can get the file. Why would people go with Druva if they have to manage backup machines? Nowadays, backup product companies need to be aggressive and adopt themselves in this highly changing world of AI and ML.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"The most valuable features of Azure Site Recovery are its ease of use and speed of recovery."
"Azure Site Recovery is obviously a time-saving solution, and I can write PowerShell scripts to automate failover on or off processes."
"What I like best about Azure Site Recovery is that it's easier to use because my organization already has Azure as an Active Directory solution."
"Our primary use case is for disaster recovery and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR)."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"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."
"They're moving a lot of their workload to cloud and aiming for a seamlessly integrated product."
"Once you set it up and you tell it exactly what needs to be backed up, you literally forget about it. It sends you emails and notifications of the current status of the jobs."
"I would definitively say that we have been able to make our people more productive by at least 30%."
"Druva Phoenix is easy to use and easy to start with."
"It's patch-based, so you don't have to bother about the backup server or the repository."
"I found the cost-effectiveness of Druva Phoenix to be its most valuable feature, especially when compared to on-premises backup solutions."
"The initial setup was very straightforward."
"The most valuable features of Druva Phoenix are the simple portal to log in and flexibility."
 

Cons

"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"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."
"It is for site-to-site replication. When something goes wrong on your site, you only get 15 minutes before it also goes wrong on your replicated site. There should be some way to be able to say that we want to restore it, but we want to restore it to the version from yesterday. It should support versioning. I would also like to see real-time scanning for advanced threat protection, more straightforward billing, and quicker turnaround on the tech support."
"It would be good if we could replicate the solution to multiple locations simultaneously because we are currently allowed to replicate to just a single location."
"It could include more of a backup and recovery."
"Currently, Azure Site Recovery does not support shared disk options. Moreover, it does not support services like AppConfig or App Services."
"Azure Site Recovery does not support shared disk options."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"They were able to give us a very reasonable price considering we were non-for-profit organizations, however, there is always room for improvement on that cost."
"Druva Phoenix should include a few reporting features that it doesn't provide currently."
"There is room for improvement in the reporting aspect of Druva Phoenix."
"The product's pricing needs to be improved."
"Druva Phoenix is optimized to work with x86 platforms, making it unsuitable for backing up non-x86 architectures like AIX. The solution is primarily designed for physical Linux and Windows systems based on the x86 architecture, as well as virtualized Windows and Linux environments. However, if you have an AIX system, it cannot be deployed in the cloud, and therefore, backing it up in the cloud is not a concern."
"The ransomware features are limited in Druva. There's a lot of improvement needed. It should extend to Nutanix and Hyper-V. It should extend to Azure as well."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Azure Site Recovery is a very reasonably priced product."
"The tool's licensing is yearly and not expensive."
"Azure Site Recovery is affordable."
"I'm not sure about the Azure Site Recovery pricing, but my organization gets monthly bills from providers."
"They have a license to pay."
"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."
"It's very costly. Normal people wouldn't understand how their credits are calculated. It's pretty complex."
"Druva Phoenix's pricing is based on the service provided, and it's reasonable. The cost of the service will depend on the size of your data and the number of virtual machines being backed up. However, the pricing structure is straightforward and easy to understand."
"I assume clients use Druva Phoenix because it is cheaper than other products."
"We’ve had experience with the data center for a while and we have had solutions that were able to support older versions of the operating systems that we needed. I would like for Druva to support it as well."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery as a Service solutions are best for your needs.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
17%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Legal Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

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?
The price of Azure Site Recovery was reasonable compared to other data costs. It was not the expensive part of our costs, but, as always, there is room to make it cheaper.
What needs improvement with Azure Site Recovery?
To be honest, I didn't use it directly. As far as I know, there weren't any significant problems with Azure Site Recovery. Although pricing for data solutions can always be cheaper, site recovery w...
What do you like most about Druva Phoenix?
Druva Phoenix is easy to use and easy to start with.
What needs improvement with Druva Phoenix?
The product's pricing needs to be improved. Including more flexible feature sets such as options for sending secondary backups to different locations would be beneficial.
What is your primary use case for Druva Phoenix?
We utilized the product to modernize backup as a service, eliminating the need for extensive hardware and ensuring data is securely backed off-site.
 

Also Known As

No data available
CloudRanger
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Russell Reynolds Associates, Union Insurance, Rackspace
TRC Companies, Family Health Network, GulfMark Offshore, Pall Corporation
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Site Recovery vs. Druva Phoenix and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.