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 (2nd)
OpenText Recover​
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
8.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (25th)
 

Featured Reviews

AP
IT Manager at NTT DATA
Long-term user praises cost savings and reliability of disaster recovery solutions
There is only one thing to note: the agent has to be up-to-date when SCCM or any third-party tools are doing patching activities. If their agent version is mismatched and the health status is critical, you will not be able to perform your Azure Site Recovery. 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. When you raise a call, they wait too long, and even if you request an engineer to set up a call for severity B cases, they are not ready to communicate over the phone, preferring email instead.
Rias Majeed - PeerSpot reviewer
CTO at Exceed NetSec LLC
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

"You can create automation to move workloads and redirect traffic to another region."
"Azure Site Recovery is obviously a time-saving solution, and I can write PowerShell scripts to automate failover on or off processes."
"They're moving a lot of their workload to cloud and aiming for a seamlessly integrated product."
"The features I find most valuable in Azure Site Recovery include the test failover, which allows us to test our site recovery without bringing down the primary; disaster recovery provides that feature."
"The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"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."
"Despite the cost concerns and downtime management, I would still recommend Azure Site Recovery."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"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

"Azure Site Recovery does not support shared disk options."
"The tool should improve synchronization."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the release of patches, such as ensuring they are properly managed to avoid outages."
"I conveyed the feedback to the agent, suggesting an increase in the agent count in our VNS in the USA. I also addressed notification concerns, as some issues didn't trigger alerts during a recent call."
"The support team took a lot of time to respond and was not very professional."
"I would like to see more security features."
"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 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

"Azure Site Recovery is a very reasonably priced product."
"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 affordable."
"Azure Site Recovery is neither very expensive nor very cheap."
"The tool's licensing is yearly and not expensive."
"They have a license to pay."
"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."
"I'm not sure about the Azure Site Recovery pricing, but my organization gets monthly bills from providers."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions are best for your needs.
879,422 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
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: December 2025.
879,422 professionals have used our research since 2012.