We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service 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."They're moving a lot of their workload to cloud and aiming for a seamlessly integrated product."
"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"It is a very stable product and very scalable."
"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 documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs."
"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)."
"We haven't needed anyone to maintain or deploy the solution. The traditional Nutanix administrator can administer the solution."
"The tool's most valuable feature is ease of use."
"Hyper-convergence gives me the ability to patch my firmware, software, and hypervisors with a single click. That is extremely useful."
"The solution is stable."
"It is a very secure and scalable solution, and their support is also outstanding."
"It offers synchronous data replication, allowing us to sync our recovery data every hour and efficiently send applications to remote sites."
"Could have more integration with other platforms."
"Site Recovery's scalability could be improved."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
"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 tool should improve synchronization."
"I would like to see more security features."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"The support team took a lot of time to respond and was not very professional."
"For moving the data for DR, we are using Megaport. We are using a Megaport link between the data centers, so we have a third party for the site-to-site connectivity between the data centers. If such connectivity is available from the Nutanix side, it would be helpful for us."
"The solution needs improvement in cost."
"The pricing could be better."
"The product is more costly than other platforms. The price could be better."
"I think that Nutanix should support public clouds instead of the Nutanix data centers."
"They need better reporting on the environment."
More Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews while Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service is ranked 3rd in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 6 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service 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 Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service writes "Affordable, highly scalable, and outstanding support". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Rubrik, whereas Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service is most compared with Zerto, VMware SRM, Dell RecoverPoint for Virtual Machines, Veeam Backup & Replication and VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery. See our Azure Site Recovery vs. Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service report.
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.
