We performed a comparison between Arcserve Cloud Services and Azure Site Recovery based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Commvault, Nutanix and others in Disaster Recovery as a Service."The backup retention was pretty good. Being able to archive users who had been backed up, is a good functionality. Even if they've been deactivated it'll keep the backups and keep them protected."
"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."
"What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"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."
"We use the tool for business continuity purposes."
"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."
"StorageCraft wasn't getting full backup coverage. It was backing up around one to 2% of the points. It was not a reliable platform and it wasn't giving any sort of alerts that things were not working."
"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."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"Site Recovery's scalability could be improved."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"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."
Earn 20 points
Arcserve Cloud Services is ranked 17th in Disaster Recovery as a Service while Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews. Arcserve Cloud Services is rated 5.0, while Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Arcserve Cloud Services writes "Good backup retention but it is not a reliable platform and it doesn't giving any sort of alerts that things are not working". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Azure Site Recovery writes "Useful for restoration purposes that ensures that the users get to save a lot of time". Arcserve Cloud Services is most compared with Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365 and Veeam Backup & Replication, whereas Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Commvault Cloud.
See our list of best Disaster Recovery as a Service vendors.
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.