We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Commvault, VMware and others in Disaster Recovery as a Service."The most useful thing is that it provides a snapshot of your environment in about 15 minutes. It is stable, and it always works. It is also scalable and easy to set up."
"They're moving a lot of their workload to cloud and aiming for a seamlessly integrated product."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"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."
"Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs."
"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of what is happening with our business as well as the good reporting and dashboards."
"We use the mirroring to mirror our volumes to our DR location. We also create snapshots for backups. Snapshots will create a specified snapshot to be able to do a DR test without disrupting our standard mirrors. That means we can create a point-in-time snapshot, then use the ability of FlexClones to make a writeable volume to test with, and then blow it away after the DR test."
"The good thing about NetApp is the features that are available on the cloud are also available on-premises."
"The storage tiering is definitely the most valuable feature... With respect to tiering, the inactive data is pushed to a lower tier where the storage cost is cheap, but the access cost is high."
"In terms of administration, the portal which provides the dashboard view is an excellent tool for operations. It gives you volume divisions, usage rates, which division is using how much data, and more. The operations portal is fantastic for the support team."
"One thing I have noticed is that it is very simple to move the data where we need to move it, delete it, or archive it if we need to archive it to StorageGRID."
"I like how you can easily pair on-prem with the cloud and the cloud backup feature. I like the whole integration with on-prem and the cloud for SnapMirror relationships."
"So a lot of these licenses are at the rate that is required for capacity. So they're they're able to reduce the license consumption and also the consumption of the underlying cloud storage."
"The ability to do a straight SnapMirror from our on-prem to the cloud with no other data transitions is excellent."
"I would like to see more security features."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"The product's performance is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The tool should improve synchronization."
"Azure Site Recovery's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability."
"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."
"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."
"It could include more of a backup and recovery."
"We want to be able to add more than six disks in aggregate, but there is a limit of the number of disks in aggregate. In GCP, they provide less by limiting the sixth disk in aggregate. In Azure, the same solution provides 12 disks in an aggregate versus GCP where it is just half that amount. They should bump up the disk in aggregate requirement so we don't have to migrate the aggregate from one to another when the capacities are full."
"Some of the licensing is a little kludgy. We just created an HA environment in Azure and their licensing for SVMs per node is a little kludgy. They're working on it right now."
"Only AWS and Azure public clouds are currently available from China, and I would like to see support for Aliyun (Alibaba Cloud)."
"How it handles erasure coding. I feel it the improvement should be there. Basically, it should be seamless. You don't want to have an underlying hardware issue or something, then suddenly there's no reads or writes. Luckily, it's at a replication site, so our main production site is still working and writing to it. But, the replication site has stopped right now while we try to bring that node back. Since we implemented in bare-metal, not in appliance, we had to go back to the original vendor. They didn't send it in time, and we had a hardware memory issue. Then, we had a hard disk issue, which brought the node down physically."
"I rate the scalability a five out of ten."
"In the next release, I would like to see more options on the dashboard."
"I think the challenge now is more in terms of keeping an air gap. The notion that it is in the cloud, easy to break, etc. The challenge now is mostly about the air gap and how we can protect that in the cloud."
"The navigation on some of the configuration parameters is a bit cumbersome, making the learning curve on functions somewhat steep."
Sign up for a 30-day trial to see how Cloud Volumes ONTAP can help you optimize cloud storage costs and performance, while enhancing data enterprise-grade protection, security, and compliance - wherever your data lives.
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 18 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Software Defined Storage with 60 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Azure Site Recovery writes "Useful for restoration purposes that ensures that the users get to save a lot of time". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, VMware SRM, Zerto, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and NAKIVO Backup & Replication, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Portworx Enterprise and Google Cloud Storage.
We monitor all Disaster Recovery as a Service 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.