Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs Precisely Assure QuickEDD comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 15, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery
Ranking in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software
14th
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Backup and Recovery (26th), Cloud Backup (19th)
Precisely Assure QuickEDD
Ranking in Disaster Recovery (DR) Software
19th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Disaster Recovery (DR) Software category, the mindshare of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is 1.3%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Precisely Assure QuickEDD is 1.1%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Disaster Recovery (DR) Software
 

Featured Reviews

Vijay Londhe - PeerSpot reviewer
Managed services with seamless integration and good reliability
Since I have to view everything on the console, the previous application solutions like IBM and Sanavi showed the RPO and RTO status directly. In AWS Disaster Recovery Service, these details are not available, making it difficult to check my replication status. I have to calculate whether my data is replicated to the Adarabad region or not. These features, if available in AWS, would be beneficial.
reviewer2325741 - PeerSpot reviewer
Trustworthy and provides good availability
Our administrator found the solution easy to use, but once that administrator left, it felt very overwhelming to the individual who took it over. It could be more of a knowledge transfer situation that didn't happen, but we didn't know if it was easy to use. Precisely Assure QuickEDD is deployed on the cloud in our organization. The implementation of QLED helped us with our recovery time objective and was a seamless transition. In order to utilize the product to its fullest potential, users should be knowledgeable of what it offers. They should also form a relationship with the person who is their representative. Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable aspect of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is its instant block replication feature. This allows us to perform live block verification and eliminates the need to concern ourselves with recovery point objectives. This capability is particularly advantageous for critical workloads."
"We have never had any issues with scalability."
"Customer service is quite helpful."
"Technical support has been very good. They usually respond quickly to our requests.​"
"The strong points are the stability and scalability of the solution, as well as the convenience of it being cloud-based."
"What I like about ECR AWS is that it is a fully managed service, so I don't need to manage the underlying infrastructure or worry about scalability in AWS concerning building, maintenance, security, and high availability."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward, it's not complex."
"It provides our disaster recovery solution. It works fine in our tests.​"
"Synchronous applications are valuable."
"The most valuable feature of Precisely Assure QuickEDD is the backup system."
 

Cons

"I have not seen any areas that need improvement at this time."
"The product could be improved by incorporating more AI-driven automation for deployment and additional security features. These enhancements would make the solution even more user-friendly and secure."
"The bandwidth is a constant upload communication to the AWS DR environment, so if you do not have the proper bandwidth, it will definitely eat up your internet line."
"In its current state, ECL integrates with CloudWatch for basic logging and monitoring, yet improvements could include more detailed logs for specific actions, like when I perform actions such as push or pull."
"Since I have to view everything on the console, the previous application solutions like IBM and Sanavi showed the RPO and RTO status directly. In AWS Disaster Recovery Service, these details are not available, making it difficult to check my replication status."
"I would like to see better support for creating and working with archives."
"An improved AWS pricing model is needed."
"The failback could be improved. It should be more intuitive."
"There should be more interactive dashboards."
"Our administrator found the solution easy to use, but once that administrator left, it felt very overwhelming to the individual who took it over."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is better now that they had come out with the Tier 2 which replicates a little less often. In comparison to what I would have been spending with any other type of solution, the pricing is fair."
"They license us on a per machine basis. We have a set number of machines, which we have licensed.​"
"We were happy with the pricing that they gave us."
"It has saved us money from having to buy hardware for disaster recovery."
"I feel the product's pricing is a good value. Licensing is pretty straightforward."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten."
"Where the price adds up, there are CloudEndure licenses, then there is the AWS environment, and finally, there is the AWS storage, so cumulatively, it adds up."
"I rate the price of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery a six out of ten."
"It is expensive. The cost varies based on your requirements. If you want to manage it, there is an extra cost."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery (DR) Software solutions are best for your needs.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
13%
Government
12%
Healthcare Company
10%
Computer Software Company
27%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Insurance Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about CloudEndure Disaster Recovery?
CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is a fairly stable solution.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CloudEndure Disaster Recovery?
The setup is actually managed by our partner. I have taken a rate of per user. Licensing is completely managed by the partner. I am paying per user and per GB storage cost, while the infrastructure...
What needs improvement with CloudEndure Disaster Recovery?
In its current state, ECL integrates with CloudWatch for basic logging and monitoring, yet improvements could include more detailed logs for specific actions, like when I perform actions such as pu...
What do you like most about Precisely Assure QuickEDD?
The most valuable feature of Precisely Assure QuickEDD is the backup system.
What is your primary use case for Precisely Assure QuickEDD?
We used Precisely Assure QuickEDD for our backups.
What advice do you have for others considering Precisely Assure QuickEDD?
Our administrator found the solution easy to use, but once that administrator left, it felt very overwhelming to the individual who took it over. It could be more of a knowledge transfer situation ...
 

Also Known As

CloudEndure Disaster Recovery
Syncsort Assure QuickEDD, Syncsort Quick-EDD/HA, Quick-EDD/HA
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Agio, Cloud Nation, Limelight Networks
Toyota Material Handling Australia, Westpac Pacific Banking, Symphony Health, Wimbledon, OCBC Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs. Precisely Assure QuickEDD and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.