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

Druva Phoenix vs Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 14, 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

Druva Phoenix
Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Backup (16th), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (11th), SaaS Backup (7th)
Nutanix Disaster Recovery a...
Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service
4th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
7
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2025, in the Disaster Recovery as a Service category, the mindshare of Druva Phoenix is 2.9%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service is 13.3%, down from 13.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Disaster Recovery as a Service
 

Featured Reviews

Ratnodeep Roy - PeerSpot reviewer
Patch-based system, offers network flexibility but Logs are not very informative for regular users
The ransomware features are limited in Druva. There's a lot of improvement needed. It should extend to Nutanix and Hyper-V. It should extend to Azure as well. A lot of people are looking for ransomware scans, but Druva doesn't support them. Veeam barely supports them over Azure Virtual Machines. It doesn't support Linux Virtual Machines. NetApp and Commvault don't have such features. Acronis is also limited. In Azure, you have Azure Defender, but that works extensively on cloud storage, not on the servers. So, backup companies like Druva need to work a lot on ransomware protection and detection. These companies need to work a lot on ransomware detection, protection and more. Ransomware protection doesn't work in this hash-based transfer mirroring. If I only have to find this hash and feed it to the Druva end. It's sometimes not possible. It will struggle when the workloads are more than a hundred machines. It's not possible to find the hash of each file and provide it to Druva. So, this needs to be fully automated. If I were scanning with some technology, maybe signature-based scanning, behavioral-based, or keyword-based scanning. I can put this FHA, maybe SIEMs as well. But Druva is very limited. It's already in an active stage. I don't like that they don't extend all the features to all the workloads. These features are minimal compared to those of its competitors. For instance, I have one customer who was looking for Druva, but since they have Azure machines, they couldn't find a way to restore a particular file. Druva doesn't provide Azure virtual machine single file restore. It doesn't make sense to build a product and then it doesn't support it. Customers really struggle. Some customers tried Druva so that they don't have to think about setting up a separate network, but Druva is making things critical by not providing all the things at once and gradually releasing them. It's been more than six months or one year since they started their virtual machines, but there is no single file restore. Every time you have to restore the VM, and then from there, you can get the file. Why would people go with Druva if they have to manage backup machines? Nowadays, backup product companies need to be aggressive and adopt themselves in this highly changing world of AI and ML.
Jaimin Mehta - PeerSpot reviewer
Affordable, highly scalable, and outstanding support
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. Currently, Nutanix is providing the remote snapshot, and on the data center side, there is one cluster, and on the DR side, there is another cluster. We have synchronized both clusters with the same environment. For connectivity, we are using a Megaport link, and we have to pay a third party for that. If Nutanix can provide such connectivity, it will be helpful.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's patch-based, so you don't have to bother about the backup server or the repository."
"Druva Phoenix is easy to use and easy to start with."
"The most valuable features of Druva Phoenix are the simple portal to log in and flexibility."
"I would definitively say that we have been able to make our people more productive by at least 30%."
"I found the cost-effectiveness of Druva Phoenix to be its most valuable feature, especially when compared to on-premises backup solutions."
"Once you set it up and you tell it exactly what needs to be backed up, you literally forget about it. It sends you emails and notifications of the current status of the jobs."
"The initial setup was very straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is its simplicity."
"It offers synchronous data replication, allowing us to sync our recovery data every hour and efficiently send applications to remote sites."
"It is a very secure and scalable solution, and their support is also outstanding."
"We haven't needed anyone to maintain or deploy the solution. The traditional Nutanix administrator can administer the solution."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
 

Cons

"The ransomware features are limited in Druva. There's a lot of improvement needed. It should extend to Nutanix and Hyper-V. It should extend to Azure as well."
"Druva Phoenix is optimized to work with x86 platforms, making it unsuitable for backing up non-x86 architectures like AIX. The solution is primarily designed for physical Linux and Windows systems based on the x86 architecture, as well as virtualized Windows and Linux environments. However, if you have an AIX system, it cannot be deployed in the cloud, and therefore, backing it up in the cloud is not a concern."
"They were able to give us a very reasonable price considering we were non-for-profit organizations, however, there is always room for improvement on that cost."
"The product's pricing needs to be improved."
"Druva Phoenix should include a few reporting features that it doesn't provide currently."
"There is room for improvement in the reporting aspect of Druva Phoenix."
"The pricing could be better."
"I think that Nutanix should support public clouds instead of the Nutanix data centers."
"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 product is more costly than other platforms. The price could be better."
"The solution needs improvement in cost."
"They need better reporting on the environment."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's very costly. Normal people wouldn't understand how their credits are calculated. It's pretty complex."
"We’ve had experience with the data center for a while and we have had solutions that were able to support older versions of the operating systems that we needed. I would like for Druva to support it as well."
"Druva Phoenix's pricing is based on the service provided, and it's reasonable. The cost of the service will depend on the size of your data and the number of virtual machines being backed up. However, the pricing structure is straightforward and easy to understand."
"I assume clients use Druva Phoenix because it is cheaper than other products."
"I always want it to be cheaper."
"One-time costs may initially seem high, but they reflect the quality of the service received."
"Besides the license, there are additional costs with the network connection. The customer may want a direct connection between the two data centers and that has an extra cost."
"It is a little bit cheaper than the other products in the market. It is affordable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery as a Service solutions are best for your needs.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Computer Software Company
24%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Druva Phoenix?
Druva Phoenix is easy to use and easy to start with.
What needs improvement with Druva Phoenix?
The product's pricing needs to be improved. Including more flexible feature sets such as options for sending secondary backups to different locations would be beneficial.
What is your primary use case for Druva Phoenix?
We utilized the product to modernize backup as a service, eliminating the need for extensive hardware and ensuring data is securely backed off-site.
What do you like most about Nutanix Xi Leap?
The tool's most valuable feature is ease of use.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Nutanix Xi Leap?
Pricing is average. I rate the product’s pricing a nine out of ten, where ten is good.
What needs improvement with Nutanix Xi Leap?
The solution needs improvement in cost.
 

Also Known As

CloudRanger
Nutanix Xi Leap
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TRC Companies, Family Health Network, GulfMark Offshore, Pall Corporation
JetBlue, International Speedway Corporation, SAIC Volkswagen
Find out what your peers are saying about Druva Phoenix vs. Nutanix Disaster Recovery as a Service and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
845,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.