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

Azure Site Recovery vs Veeam Cloud Connect [EOL] 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)
Veeam Cloud Connect [EOL]
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
23
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

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.
Charles Daou - PeerSpot reviewer
Great backup that's user-friendly and very reliable
The initial setup is very straightforward. It is easy. There are no great difficulties when setting up the solution. Even the configuration is simple. The deployment itself takes only a couple of days. It only takes one person to install it. You do not need a big team. We had an engineer manage it. The product does not require any maintenance.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"We use the tool for business continuity purposes."
"It is a very stable product and very scalable."
"They're moving a lot of their workload to cloud and aiming for a seamlessly integrated product."
"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"The most valuable features of Azure Site Recovery are its ease of use and speed of recovery."
"The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"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."
"The most valuable features are the fast replication and recovery of data."
"the interface is the most valuable feature and for the client it's security."
"I've found flexibility to the most valuable feature. I also like that it's scalable and that the stability is okay."
"It's a stable solution."
"The deployment is quite simple. Users are generally happy because of the familiarity they have with the features. The solution offers good transparency for the end-user."
"Replication without network changes."
"The best part about this solution is that it just works."
"The stability and restore options on the solution are very good."
 

Cons

"Azure Site Recovery does not support shared disk options."
"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."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"There is room for improvement in the release of patches, such as ensuring they are properly managed to avoid outages."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"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."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"Basically, a huge amount of storage capacity can be required in certain cases."
"The dashboard could be more intuitive."
"We need the solution to offer IT storage."
"The solution could improve the stability."
"The solution needs to be more scalable. There should be no reason to set up Veeam Cloud Connect and have 10 servers in order to have a cloud backup. The initial setup could be easier."
"The solution should allow for interfacing with other public cloud vendors. They could work to build something around that concept."
"We encountered some issues with stability at the beginning."
"We are now able to work on more security-related tasks with Acronis, as they offer features such as antivirus, DLP, and various cybersecurity options. This is a significant improvement compared to our previous solution with Veeam Cloud Connect, where we were lacking such features. It also allows us to offer a wider range of security options to our customers."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Azure Site Recovery is a very reasonably priced product."
"Azure Site Recovery is neither very expensive nor very cheap."
"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."
"I'm not sure about the Azure Site Recovery pricing, but my organization gets monthly bills from providers."
"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."
"Azure Site Recovery is affordable."
"The tool's licensing is yearly and not expensive."
"It's not the cheapest solution on the market but it's reliable, so we find it cost-effective."
"The price of the solution is reasonable because of our good standing with the vendor."
"The licensing fee is on a monthly basis."
"The pricing of Veeam Cloud Connect is good."
"I think that this is one of the most cost-effective solutions."
"The price of the solution could be cheaper. There are monthly or yearly subscription options available. The annual subscription tends to be cheaper."
"We are looking into how we can extend the license of this product."
"The licensing is MSP-based. It is connected to the portal, and you can deploy it to your end users as well."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions are best for your needs.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
7%
No data available
 

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?
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Veeam Cloud Connect for the Enterprise
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Russell Reynolds Associates, Union Insurance, Rackspace
Worldwide Holdings, ContinuitySA, MPY, Linxdatacenter
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Site Recovery vs. Veeam Cloud Connect [EOL] and other solutions. Updated: May 2023.
860,632 professionals have used our research since 2012.