What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Backup?

The pricing of Azure Backup is fine; it is a low-cost solution.

Azure Backup is expensive relative to the value we get from it. I do not have specific details about the licensing cost as it falls under another department.

Pricing is middle plus, and it's a bit high. We always wait for prices to reduce, however, Azure sometimes offers special discounts or packages if you commit for more years.

Customers choose their backup tool based on its flexibility and cost-effectiveness. Customers prefer Azure Backup because it has a pay-as-you-go model, and they won't have to pay an upfront amount at the initial level. The solution's pricing and licensing depend on the environment.

Azure Backup is a moderately priced solution. On a scale from one to ten, where one is expensive and ten is cheap, I rate the solution's pricing a five out of ten.

I would rate the pricing of Azure Backup around six or seven out of ten in terms of affordability, considering the total cost. The pricing depends on factors like storage choices and retention needs, but overall, it is considered affordable and works well for both on-premises and Azure environments, particularly in Windows environments.

Azure Backup is a product that is priced at a cheap rate, and it is a great tool. The product is worth the money you pay for it.

It is incredibly cost-effective and offers fixed pricing, with no additional fees for the licensing.

The product's pricing is a three or four out of ten, where one is inexpensive, and ten is costly.

Azure Backup can be expensive if you are not vigilant about your storage steering. You need to monitor your usage. After your backup, your data goes into your storage solution, and the storage can escalate. It should be actively monitored and managed. Otherwise, Azure Backup can get very pricey. But the solution can be very cost-effective if you are smart and have the right governance. Looking at the long term and your usage fluctuates over time, it becomes a much more cost-effective option.

Considering the fact that our company's enterprise-sized customers use the solution, the product's price is fine and is not on the higher side of the spectrum.

The product is neither too expensive nor too cheap. It is moderately priced. We pay a monthly subscription fee for the solution. We have to pay additionally for the ticket cost for support. We also have to pay for any extra services that we avail.

The pricing of the solution does not depend on the service itself but rather on the minimum data volume encountered. This pricing approach seems reasonable and is on par with other competitors in the market. It is a good solution for on-premise needs because it is more cost-effective. When evaluating the overall financial expenditure, including operational costs and the impact on the IT team, Azure Backup is a favorable choice.

We do not have any additional costs for Azure Backup.

Comparing the pricing with other technologies, Azure Backup is more affordable for customers. It follows a pay-as-you-go model, where we pay according to our consumption. In terms of Azure Backup, there is no special license required. We only need to pay for the amount of data we consume and the data transferred across the network. The pricing is calculated based on these two factors. There is no explicit license cost. We just need to allocate a budget for storage and related expenses.

The pricing is in the middle as it is not the most expensive, yet they are not the cheapest. I rate it six out of ten.

Licensing costs are consumption-based so the more storage we eat, the more data we protect, the greater the cost.

There is a cost per terabyte for using this solution.

It comes with a total package of VMs and other things, so it's a bit difficult to distinguish between just the backup cost because it's an all-in-one cost. I don't manage the billing. There is a separate team that manages the billing. Overall, its cost is better because the VMs are already there, and whatever you back up, there is only the additional cost of that storage, whereas if I have to use Avamar in Azure, a separate cost is there for the Avamar server, and in addition, whatever I take as a backup, there is a separate license with Avamar for that. So, there is a double cost if we have to use Avamar in the cloud.

Pay as you go is the pricing model.

Azure offers competitive pricing and charges us only for the storage space that we use.

I work for a client who pays for the solution. My understanding is the costs vary year to year. I don't really have any visibility, however.

The price should be cheaper, but it's affordable if you use the yearly subscription.

Licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis. It's not an expensive solution. I am more than happy with the price.

The solution is part of the greater Microsoft service. I am not sure if there is a separate license just for this. It's not an additional price. There may be more costs according to how much storage is needed. You have to do the backup to a storage account and the storage account costs a price per terabytes.

We pay over $8 million per year in licensing fees for 365 and Azure usage. There is no additional cost for hardware but we train our employees and that is an added cost for us.

Price-wise, it's similar to AWS. It's always better to see a lower price.

The price is somewhat high and could be lower.

It is a bit costly initially, but it is well worth it in the long run, especially for fighting against a number of threats, such as ransomware, which the IT industry is facing.

I am not aware of the pricing, as it is handled by the accounts department.

The price is pretty good, maybe $30 for a machine, I can't complain. Pricing is based on consumption base.

From a cost perspective, it is a very good solution because it doesn't need a lot of costs because it's only a matter of storage on the cloud. You don't need any license at all, and on the cloud, you only need bandwidth. Bandwidth utilization will have various calculations of bandwidth utilization or bandwidth utilization and storage. You don't need a license. There's only a subscription with Azure, that's it. Azure will calculate the bandwidth which you are utilizing and the storage. The worst thing at Azure is software allocations. That is not required, even in Azure, to implement a server or install backup software. From Azure itself, it's a matter of configuration. No need to have infrastructure. You don't need to have a server and install the software in the cloud. It's only a matter of some steps you need to follow. It's only a platform and a service.

This is an expensive solution because of the requirements for cloud-based storage. We are paying about $100,000 USD per year, just for a couple of servers.

This is an expensive solution in the Bangladesh marketplace.

In my opinion, the price should be a little lower to be more competitive with other software. It depends on the customer's environment and subscription.

The fees are a bit expensive. When clients see improvements and see a product out of the box, clients will not look at the price, but the price could be lower. Support payment works by the level of partnership and the number of shares. As a gold partner, we have more than 50 hours of support per year and this is more than enough. With the 50 hours, I get a one hour call. If I have a problem and I call, they have one hour to call me, and I have unlimited calls if I need them to call me after 24 hours or the next day. As gold partners, we generate the licenses for our clients and we pay monthly. Our clients pay annually or make two payments per year.

The pricing of this solution is good, and it is one of the easiest things that you can sell Azure with.

The pricing of this solution is ok, but I'm expecting that the price will decrease in the future.