We performed a comparison between Azure Backup and Bacula Enterprise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Backup and Recovery solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I have no issues with the stability at all. So I don't necessarily care about the stability of the product. I look more at whether or not can I recover. And I haven't had a failed recovery yet. I've got no failed recoveries of all my years."
"One of the most valuable features is security and connectivity to the data."
"The most valuable feature is the ease in which it backs up our data."
"The hardware is always updated and it's saved us a lot of money."
"The scalability has been good."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Backup is its ease of use and good integration with other Azure services."
"It is a stable solution...The product is worth the money you pay for it."
"The product is cost-effective compared to other vendors."
"It can be used in virtually any environment we have onsite."
"It brought many advantages - such as the learning curve being very light."
"Bacula is pretty stable."
"The solution has extensive documentation and a very active community."
"The most valuable features are the special plugins such as SAP HANA databases, Microsoft SQL, and various types of virtualization."
"It works great and it provides you with several standard tools to restore your backup, even after a big failure."
"It is easy to scale Bacula Enterprise even if your system is growing tremendously in data and servers."
"The only thing I would say that could be improved is the reporting."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved."
"It would be beneficial to receive alert messages if something isn't configured correctly, for instance, if service principal names are missing, a message could prompt you to set them up."
"Azure Backup's licensing model is very challenging because it doesn't give a clear picture."
"Lacks an AI system that would enable easier upgrading of the hardware."
"The compression ratio of the backup data should be improved."
"Azure Backup could improve by offering better integration for Oracle databases and enhancing features like granular restore and backup compliance capabilities."
"The monitoring and tagging features could be improved."
"A more user-friendly interface (GUI) can be developed."
"We are looking for a unique interface that can rule both enterprise and open source editions. Such a thing does not yet exist."
"We would like to see an improvement in the functionality of the GUI."
"Bacula needs a graphical user interface because, for administrators, the command-line interface is okay, but for the average user it is not very easy."
"The initial setup could be a bit easier."
"It could improve its interface or offer a specific screen for the manager of the company."
"Easier setup and configuration, perhaps including a GUI, would be an improvement."
Azure Backup is ranked 7th in Backup and Recovery with 51 reviews while Bacula Enterprise is ranked 31st in Backup and Recovery with 9 reviews. Azure Backup is rated 7.8, while Bacula Enterprise is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Azure Backup writes "Straightforward to set up and manage and allows us to monitor all backups in one place". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Bacula Enterprise writes "Very cost-effective and well organized with good compression". Azure Backup is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Rubrik, Commvault Cloud, Veritas NetBackup and Acronis Cyber Protect, whereas Bacula Enterprise is most compared with Bareos, Veeam Backup & Replication, UrBackup, Veritas NetBackup and Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain). See our Azure Backup vs. Bacula Enterprise report.
See our list of best Backup and Recovery vendors.
We monitor all Backup and Recovery 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.