We performed a comparison between Arcserve UDP and Azure Site Recovery based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product's deployment process was straightforward."
"Global deduplication is the best feature of this solution."
"The interface is very refined, works fine, and is very intuitive most of the time. Scalability is nice. The multi-tenancy feature is very welcome. The integration with Linux works fine too."
"The ROI is very good because of the speed of the backup."
"It's simple to set up."
"One of the things that I do like about it is that it has a very good deduplication feature."
"I like the tool's speed."
"The most valuable feature of Arcserve UDP is the initiative UI and the logs are clear and detailed that are generated when there has been an issue or failure on the user's system. We only have to log onto the client's system to retrieve the information. It is possible to precisely identify the problem's location. The system categorizes and logs every step in a structured manner, selectively displaying only the essential logs. However, to view a comprehensive log, one must access the line machine log and examine the actual client for detailed logging."
"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."
"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is the visibility of what is happening with our business as well as the good reporting and dashboards."
"The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products."
"Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"Licensing is an area that needs improvement."
"The solution can use a lot of bandwidth when the scheduling is not done, it should auto-schedule itself. For example, if there are 50 users connected in the network at 12 o'clock and the backup is not scheduled. At this time the network offices are going to have performance issues when it is doing a backup. Having a feature to auto-schedule a time when the network is not being used often would be beneficial."
"Arcserve UDP is in the middle range of complexity. The interface can be developed a little bit more to be user-friendly."
"We cannot restore each user's mailbox. Each user's mailbox should be independently restorable. Also, this solution is very slow. If you select all of the servers, it runs for a long time... It needs to be faster. Finally, If anything happens to one server we should be able to switch to another server."
"It takes much time to verify and consolidate images for backups."
"It should be easier to switch between backup locations. We have multiple data storage locations and sometimes one of those storages need to be replaced. It would be nice if they made it easier to reconfigure the backup configuration."
"I think that the price could still be a bit cheaper and I do not like that they have been purchased by Arcserve."
"We have to use a Microsoft hypervisor for installation which is expensive."
"The tool should improve synchronization."
"The product's performance is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing."
Arcserve UDP is ranked 9th in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software with 42 reviews while Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews. Arcserve UDP is rated 7.6, while Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Arcserve UDP writes "Global deduplication, stable, and flexible licensing options". 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 UDP is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), Acronis Cyber Protect, Veritas NetBackup and Veritas Backup Exec, whereas Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and Commvault Cloud. See our Arcserve UDP vs. Azure Site Recovery report.
See our list of best Disaster Recovery (DR) Software vendors.
We monitor all Disaster Recovery (DR) Software 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.
