We performed a comparison between Azure Site Recovery and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Commvault, Nutanix and others in Disaster Recovery as a Service."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."
"Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"Our primary use case is for disaster recovery and business continuity and disaster recovery (BCDR)."
"It is a very stable product and very scalable."
"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."
"We use the solution across hospitality and healthcare domains. We use it for custom development. It helps us develop a seamless omnichannel for the healthcare industry."
"It's very easy to set up, and within 40 minutes, you can apply storage notes in Azure."
"Its scalability is very good."
"The initial setup was straightforward. We started with a small pilot and we then moved to production with no downtime at all."
"The solution’s Snapshot copies and thin clones in terms of operational recovery are the best thing since sliced bread. Rollback is super easy. It's just simple, and it works. It's very efficient."
"ONTAP has been very stable for us, specifically in the cloud environment. It allows us to have high availability as well as standalone systems if that's what we want within our specific workloads. Also, on-premise has been a very stable environment. We have very few outages and when we do, we work with support to get systems back online in a timely manner."
"The solution’s unified file and block-storage access across our infrastructure is invaluable. Without it, we can't do what we do."
"Unified Manager, System Manager, and Cloud Manager are all GUI-based. It's easy for somebody who has not been exposed to this for years to pick it up and work with it."
"In terms of administration, the portal which provides the dashboard view is an excellent tool for operations. It gives you volume divisions, usage rates, which division is using how much data, and more. The operations portal is fantastic for the support team."
"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."
"The support team took a lot of time to respond and was not very professional."
"It could include more of a backup and recovery."
"The product's performance is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution could be improved."
"I would like to see more security features."
"The tool should improve synchronization."
"The automated deployment was a bit complex using the public APIs. When we had to deploy Cloud Volumes ONTAP on a regular basis using automation, It could be a bit of a challenge."
"I would like some more performance matrices to know what it is doing. It has some matrices inherent to the Cloud Volumes ONTAP. But inside Cloud Manager, it would also be nice to see. You can have a little Snapshot, then drill down if you go a little deeper."
"They definitely need to stay more on top of security vulnerabilities. Our security team is constantly finding Java vulnerabilities and SQL vulnerabilities. Our security team always wants the latest security update, and it takes a while for NetApp to stay up to speed with that. That would be my biggest complaint."
"I would like to see better integration with Active IQ."
"When Azure does their maintenance, they do maintenance on one node at a time. With the two nodes of the CVO, it can automatically fail over from one node to the node that is staying up. And when the first node comes back online, it will fail back to the first node. We have had issues with everything failing back 100 percent correctly."
"We want to be able to add more than six disks in aggregate, but there is a limit of the number of disks in aggregate. In GCP, they provide less by limiting the sixth disk in aggregate. In Azure, the same solution provides 12 disks in an aggregate versus GCP where it is just half that amount. They should bump up the disk in aggregate requirement so we don't have to migrate the aggregate from one to another when the capacities are full."
"We've just been dealing with general pre-requisite infrastructure configuration challenges. Once those are out of the way, it is easy."
"We are getting a warning alert about not being able to connect to Cloud Manager when we log into it. The support has provided links, but this particular issue is not fixed yet."
Azure Site Recovery is ranked 1st in Disaster Recovery as a Service with 19 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Software Defined Storage with 60 reviews. Azure Site Recovery is rated 8.2, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. 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 NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Azure Site Recovery is most compared with Veeam Backup & Replication, Zerto, VMware SRM, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery and JetStream DR, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Cloud Storage and Red Hat Ceph Storage.
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.
