We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and Commvault Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Disaster Recovery as a Service solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations."
"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."
"Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"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."
"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"What I find valuable is restoring the complete server. Restoring files is also valuable, but I like restoring the server because you don't have to rebuild a new one."
"The most valuable feature of Metallic is its flexibility and user-friendly."
"All the management is centralized from that CommServe server. You can manage all the clients and all the infrastructure using one interface and one server... Using the Commvault interface, you can customize and generate multiple reports to easily see what is protected and what is not protected in the environment."
"Well documented SQL views and customizable reports, together with scripts and workflows provides ability to automate processes and ensure proper controls are in place."
"It provides us a good holistic view of everything that we have backed up so far. It also provides us all the recovery points. If we look at an an object that has been backed up, we can tell how many retention copies it has, how far we can go, and recover any data, if needed."
"It's a complete software that can protect all the main applications. Perhaps that's the feature I like most. The integration with the NetApp and other apps is also very nice."
"The cloud integration is a massive win for us, giving us a single backup service for all of our on-premise and cloud systems."
"The most valuable features are the ease of use, the graphical interface, and it's high speed."
"The support team took a lot of time to respond and was not very professional."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"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."
"The tool should improve synchronization."
"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."
"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 immutable backup could be better."
"Commvault is a rich system that might scare somebody the first time they see it because it feels so huge."
"The product is expensive."
"They reply to the support portal weekly, but there are some delays."
"The pricing could be more flexible in terms of licensing."
"I think the one thing that could be improved is the customer experience. The interface should be more user friendly."
"The pricing of the solution can be improved and made cheaper."
"Could be easier to implement."
"The back of virtual machines needs improvement. I know they're working on it. They're always doing new things but I think they still have a little bit more to do."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews while Commvault Cloud is ranked 2nd in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 104 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while Commvault Cloud is rated 8.6. 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 Commvault Cloud writes "Provides excellent visibility and helps reduce costs and time". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery, whereas Commvault Cloud is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Rubrik, Veeam Backup for Microsoft 365, Azure Backup and Zerto. See our Azure Site Recovery vs. Commvault Cloud report.
See our list of best Disaster Recovery as a Service vendors and best Disaster Recovery (DR) Software 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.
