Azure Backup Reviews

My company uses Azure Backup for its multiple customers. My company uses the solution for both SAP and non-SAP workloads. The solution works fantastic since we have not faced any issues. My company uses the solution as a backup tool for files and folders. We also used the solution in our company as a VM-level backup and backup storage device.

The solution's most valuable feature stems from how Azure manages redundancy. We have a cross-region backup also enabled in my company, because of which, in case of disaster, we have a replica available in another data center. The aforementioned feature makes it a fantastic tool. Another great future of the product is encryption supported by the solution to get the backup for any virtual machine or disk encrypted in our company. Both the aforementioned features are its most wonderful and coolest features.

My company faces a lot of difficulties in restoring any encrypted VM backup. Some user-friendly automation solutions should be provided in the Azure portal to help us when we try to restore any encrypted virtual machine or disk to avoid complexities during the restoration process.

I have been using Azure Backup for four to five years. My company functions as a managed service provider to the end users of Azure Backup.

It is a stable solution.

It is a highly scalable solution.

My company deals with medium and enterprise-sized customers of Azure Backup.

The technical support part is handled by third-party vendors with a V-dash account. Depending on where our company gets support from, we do not occasionally get the correct response at the correct time. My company does get a proper response when connected directly to the support from Microsoft and not to any third-party vendor.

I rate the technical support a seven out of ten.

I don't directly use Veeam in my company. One of my company's customers uses Veeam as a backup for their virtual machines, so my company is in the process of helping that customer migrate from Veeam to Azure Backup.

The initial setup of Azure Backup is easy.

The solution can be deployed in ten to fifteen minutes.

The number of people required for the deployment depends upon the number of virtual machines that must be onboarded in the backup. Ideally, a person or two can easily manage the backup solution of an enterprise-level customer.

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.

Azure Backup can be maintained easily by one or two people.

I would tell those planning to use the solution that it is a user-friendly product. Azure Backup is a durable and scalable solution that has added an interesting feature to itself by supporting the backup functionalities for the SAP HANA Database.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

The principal use cases of the solution are attached to SQL databases and virtual machines.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the speed of the recovery tasks.

I have been using Azure Backup for six years. My company is a customer and has a partnership with Microsoft.

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

With Azure Backup, I have not had to deal with any issues like bugs or breaking down.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. I don't have any issues related to the product's scalability.

Around 90 people in my organization use the solution.

Previously, in our company, we used a different solution before going ahead with Azure Backup. The reason my company chose Azure Backup was because of the simplicity it offered.

I don't know if the product's setup phase is easy or difficult since I am not involved in the setup process. I am only responsible for the team that carries out the steps related to the product's setup phase in our organization.

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.

The solution's features are enough to meet our company's use cases.

Whether I recommend the solution to others or not is something that depends on the necessity of those who plan to use it. I recommend the solution to those who have a simple infrastructure.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

The product is used for disaster recovery. We worked for a bank that needed disaster recovery. The bank was using a VMware solution. They also had some critical virtual machines. So, we deployed the solution for them.

The tool has a lot of features. It is really useful.

We faced some issues synchronizing the information in Azure when the storage was changed. We have to troubleshoot a lot. We do not know the reason for the issue.

I use the solution in my organization.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. Only three to four companies use the solution in our region.

Our customers contact the support team to troubleshoot their issues.

I have used Nutanix. There was a big difference in the cost of Nutanix and Azure. Azure has a pay-as-you-go model. Azure is better than Nutanix.

The initial setup was straightforward. It is a cloud solution. We download the agent and scan for the VMs on-premise. Then, we connect the on-premise server with Azure. Later, we do the network and storage configuration.

We save money because we do not need a data center. We pay only for storage, and it is not very expensive.

The product is not expensive. We just pay for the storage. The storage is not expensive.

Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

Azure Backup is best suited for people who have their workloads on Azure. 80% of the use case is for people using compute instances or compute capacity on Azure.

There is a smaller use case for people who want scalable storage, which some can scale up and down, even though their workloads may not be in Azure and maybe a data center workload instead. Azure backup is a good solution if one needs scalable workloads on a cost-effective platform. Those are two primary use cases.

Azure lets you classify your backups as per the user, such as if they are archival backups or if it is something you need to use on a more frequent basis. You can select the tiering for your backup and manage your cost. It's not one single monolithic cost. You can choose your backup storage requirement and choose your storage tiering. And then, of course, you can get a more cost-effective backup at the end of the day. As you move into more cloud-native solutions, which means cloud-native applications developed on and for the cloud, your allocation or backup configuration becomes much more seamless. Moreover, the integrity of your backups is retained without you needing to manually check them. And then configuring your backups integrating your backups is almost seamless for your cloud-native application.

It still does not have a lot of customization, especially if your workloads are not in Azure. More and more customers are looking at hybrid solutions when they have something on Azure, a data center, and a private cloud. Your backup solution may not be customizable enough to suit your requirements when you have a hybrid environment. If it's completely Azure, Azure Backup is an excellent solution. However, there are better alternatives when discussing a multi-cloud or hybrid-cloud solution.

In addition, Though not in my personal opinion or experience, certain security and compliance questions have been raised around Azure, and that's where Azure needs to buckle down as well.

I've worked with the solution for five to six years.

The product is stable. We have not seen any concerns or issues with stability.

There are some medium-based clients, but the bulk of our clients are enterprise clients.

Azure's technical support is good, but there is always room for improvement. It's much better than its competitors.

Positive

Azure Backup is pretty simple to deploy if your applications are hosted on Azure. And the more cloud-native services you use, the easier it is to deploy. The closer you are to Azure's native environment, the easier it gets. It's almost seamless. It's just about checking a few boxes, and it's done. The complexities come in when you are in a hybrid environment.

The time taken to deploy the solution depends upon your backup policy. At most, deploying would not take more than a few minutes. Configuring the backup policies will take time, but actual deployment takes minutes.

Azure Backup is simpler to maintain compared to an on-prem backup. It's a managed service from Azure. With a backup solution, the important thing is to check your daily, weekly, and monthly schedule and the integrity of backups. That's the most time-consuming part, but all that gets highly automated in Azure.

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.

With Azure backup, there is an on-premises option using your Azure Stack, but my experience on that is limited since I deal with Azure cloud-based backups.

If anyone plans to adopt Azure Backup, first understand your backup requirements. Especially if you operate in a multi-regional environment if your workloads are spread over multiple regions and subscriptions, it makes sense to have a cloud-based backup on Azure, especially if you operate in a multi-regional environment. That helps you scale out as required and simplifies the deployment of web-based or Azure-native applications. The word of caution is to be vigilant about your backup consumption and be proactive in choosing the right tier so that it remains cost-effective for you.

I rate Azure Backup an eight out of ten. The solution is great with cloud-native applications. But if you go into a hybrid environment or a multi-cloud environment, that's when there are complexities. Moreover, you need to be vigilant about what you're using. Otherwise, the cost can spiral out of control.

With Azure Backup, you can readily make your environment if your setup somehow fails on the cloud or on-premises. You can immediately get your system from the backups within five or ten minutes.

While Azure Backup allows ingress data, the egress data is chargeable, which should be excluded. Our clients mostly complain that taking a backup with Azure Backup is free, but retrieving the backup from Azure is chargeable.

It is easy to back up small data and run your system in Azure Backup. After your system is ready, you have to sync your system with Azure Backup, which costs more. There are two segments of people. One segment is happy because they got the emergency recovery of their system. They mention that they feel better if they have to pay for the backup or the egress data because their system is okay. Some people are unhappy because their backup is available, but they have to pay for it. Only a small portion (around 20-30 %) of people fall into this segment, but most are happy.

I have been using Azure Backup for almost more than five years.

The solution's stability and performance are good, except for an issue with its servers.

Azure Backup is a scalable solution.

The problem with technical support is the same for all Microsoft products. Azure Backup's technical support team responds well to severe cases. Their response is too much slow for a non-severe case due to being overwhelmed by severe cases. The support team rarely responds to less severe cases; sometimes, it takes two or three days for them to respond. The support team complies with the SLA for severe cases, but sometimes they fail to do it.

Neutral

Azure Backup has the most user-friendly interface compared to AWS, Google Workspace, or Google Cloud. The Azure platform is much easier to work with than AWS and Google Cloud.

The setup for insight cloud backup is easy. However, site recovery from on-premise to the cloud can be tough because we have to set a lot of parameters.

The initial syncing process is tough in case of site recovery. However, it performs better once your system is synced. It is difficult in specific situations, like if you stop syncing, if storage is full, or if your on-premises server storage is full. The initial setup is difficult for site recovery and backup. It becomes easy once the initial backup is completed.

We strongly recommend to our clients that if they already have a primary backup system, it is advisable to complement it with a cloud or secondary backup for added safety. This is crucial because your backup could crash at any moment due to malware. We recommend all our partners and clients have a cloud backup.

We advise our clients to keep a backup on Azure Backup Cloud. We suggest financial organizations keep a tertiary backup. It would be helpful if the solution introduced a reserve system for backup. The clients would only pay for storage and backup service price. They need to reduce prices so that more people would use cloud backup.

Although some customers already have an on-premises backup for their environment, offering a slightly lower price and the option for one-year and three-year reserve systems may draw more people to opt for secondary backup on the cloud.

Overall, I rate Azure Backup an eight and a half out of ten.

Our company was facing a lot of difficulties maintaining the servers, and we did not have a solid backup solution. So, we moved to Azure.

The product is very reliable and easy to use. Microsoft tools are very user-friendly.

The product could improve its performance.

I used the solution in my previous organization for about two years.

The tool had stability issues. The support team took care of it.

The tool is easily scalable since it is cloud-based. Around 1500 people were using the solution in our organization.

The support was superb. Whenever we had any issues, we called the support team.

Positive

The installation was easy. We took two to three months to deploy the solution. We had to plan since we had a lot of servers.

We had a partner who assisted us in installing the solution. We had a SPOC who was taking care of everything. We required two or three people on the back end to deploy the product. The partner assisted us, and we did the planning and strategy. The solution was easy to maintain. We needed two people to maintain it.

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 solution is neither better nor worse than other products. It is on the cloud, so we don't have any backup appliances on-premises. The drawback is that it relies on network bandwidth and other factors for recovery. If we had a backup appliance on-premise, it would be easy to recover.

We had branch offices in India, headquarters in Hong Kong, and multiple offices in Singapore, the UK, and the US. All the branches were using Azure.

People who want a purely cloud-based solution can use the product. People who want a hybrid solution must consider other vendors. Though Azure has secondary data on the cloud, it still recommends using some third-party tools like Veeam and Commvault. Having data on Azure and backup data on another third-party vendor is fair enough.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The main use case is to back up my on-premises machines, essentially resembling the traditional backup software that has been included with Windows operating systems for the past three decades. In this specific case, it's a cloud-based solution. This cloud-based backup service also offers regional redundancy. For instance, if you're using the South UK region as your primary location for backups, you have the option to mirror your backups to another designated region. In the past, this secondary region used to be highly customizable, but now specific regions are designated as partners. For instance, Western North Europe may be a partner region. This means you are constrained to using specific partner regions for redundancy. If the primary region encounters issues, the secondary region will seamlessly take over the backup load.

It is a functional backup solution. One of its standout features is similar to the "Recycle Bin" on your Windows Explorer desktop but for your backups. You have the flexibility to encrypt your backups and choose the storage capacity you're comfortable paying for. It empowers you to create virtual machines that scan your network and assume the administrative tasks related to backup. This means you can easily configure backups between different machines, similar to what you can do with vSphere in VMware, where automation takes care of administering your machines. These capabilities extend beyond just Hyper-V and also cover Mobile Device Management (MDM).

When attempting to back up encrypted files and later restore them to another location, it's essential to configure your service principal names. Many Windows administrators are familiar with this and handle it manually. It would be beneficial to receive alert messages if something isn't configured correctly, for instance, if service principal names are missing, a message could prompt you to set them up. This is a common challenge shared by various backup programs and administrators who are unaware of these requirements tend to overlook them, rendering encrypted file restores impossible. It is essential to test the restore functionality to ensure it works as expected. Also, having configuration assistance with quality of service features would be valuable for administrators. This would allow administrators to allocate resources effectively, deciding how much bandwidth to assign to different backup tasks. An upcoming feature, that appears promising, is the platform connectivity feature. This feature will apply to various types of networks, including video networks and other backup networks. It would be great to see a similar capability integrated into Azure Backup in the future.

I have been working with it for five years.

The customer support is truly exceptional. I've had the opportunity to experience support from Cisco, which is renowned for its top-tier service. In comparison, Microsoft's support is right up there, coming in as a close second. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

I have some experience, but I am not actively utilizing Veeam anymore. I've found Azure Backup to be quite satisfactory for my needs. Some of my clients still prefer Veeam. It's worth noting that the terminology and concepts in these backup solutions are very similar. Veeam is often considered more user-friendly, but it comes at a higher cost. With Azure Backup, you primarily pay for storage. It may seem like a marketing strategy by Microsoft, but it's important to understand that the cost of the backup service itself is bundled into the storage pricing.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward. You just need to follow the instructions provided, which are usually quite clear. Whether you're selecting Hyper-V or a barebone machine, the instructions are generally easy to understand. The only potential challenge I've encountered is with download links when you need to install an agent. When it comes to the backup processes themselves, I haven't faced any significant issues. All of my students have been able to follow the instructions, which speaks to the product's usability and reliability.

In terms of ROI, it has proven to be quite successful for my specific needs, and it is incredibly cost-effective. I am quite satisfied with it.

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

As with any backup software, it's crucial to thoroughly test the recovery process to ensure it functions as intended. Sometimes, the issue might simply be forgetting to configure your service principal names (SPNs). SPNs can be somewhat similar to DNS names. When you enter "Google.com," you expect to receive an IP address. Similarly, when dealing with service principal names, you specify the HTTP or another service on a particular machine and expect to validate it with a certificate. It is an essential step that should not be overlooked. If these configurations are forgotten, it could result in backups that cannot be restored, which is far from ideal. Therefore, rigorous testing is essential to validate the effectiveness of your backup strategy. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

The product is a part of our cloud infrastructure strategy.

All of the core features are valuable to us.

The product satisfies the need for backups within Azure. However, it is not very flexible in the world of technology. I can’t use the solution to restore another native cloud solution. Azure must add this new feature.

I have been using the solution for five to six years.

We have had very little downtime. I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution has decent scalability. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We reached out to the technical support team for some minor issues. Microsoft’s technical support is not the greatest. Our experience has been the same across all the services.

Neutral

We used Commvault. It is quite diverse in its capabilities and provides flexible options for backup across multi-cloud platforms.

The initial setup was straightforward. The product is deployed on the cloud.

We have enterprise-level pricing. I rate the pricing a five out of ten.

We can use the solution if we don't plan to work in a multi-cloud environment. It meets our requirements. Azure Backup might not be the right product for us if we want a higher disaster recovery capability. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a backup.

With on-premises servers, you can have a long-term archival sitting on public clouds, like Azure. That is also one of the very good use cases where you're avoiding all the tape requirements for your long-term archival. 

It's a native solution provided by Microsoft. It solves the needs we have. We are using it at most places, unless, and until there is some specific requirement where there's a database or something, which you're getting out of the box from Azure Backup. That's when we go for other third-party backup solutions. Otherwise, for the VM backups and all of that, it's a great product. It's one of the best solutions for backups.

It's easy to use. 

The storage cost is not too much. 

It gives you what you would like to have from a basic solution, like machine backup, or for your snapshots. Everything can be done from the platform itself. 

The management interface is very intuitive and familiar. It makes it a lot easier for anyone to manage it or to actually work on it.

The integration with the record database and integration with other applications will be good, especially with the database piece. MySQL and Oracle are very widely used databases and Azure Backup doesn't have tight integration with them. It only provides the backup of the disc and the virtual machine and associated data, however, it doesn't provide you an application of their backup for non-Microsoft products, especially. That is where SQL Server, which is a Microsoft database, provides a good integration for the initial backup in MySQL which is a widely used database solution. They should actually provide that or you can handle integration with those databases as well.

The most important thing is integration with third-party products. That could be one of the best features. Whenever we have to look for databases or specific applications, that's when things get complicated and where third parties, like Win Backup, Symantec, and other backup solutions come in. The most important thing they can do to improve is to cover at least industry standard databases first.

I've been using the solution for seven or eight years now. 

The backup stability is good.

Scalability is fine. For any mid-size org, it is a good solution. We have done it for close to 2,000 servers, so it is working fine.

In terms of tech support, I'm disappointed with support. It's not like earlier days. Earlier Microsoft tech support used to be one of the best. Now that's not the case. You have long queues and you have to wait a bit longer compared to earlier. What I can say is there are a lot of articles, and there are self-help resources. Those are available. That actually helps in troubleshooting. You do not always have to open a ticket unless and until there is something really critical. You just don't get a timely response.

Neutral

I have used AWS. Azure is a more mature product. AWS didn't used to have a backup solution. 

It's easy to deploy.

We have a deployment team. There is usually very few people dealing with the implementation. You might have eight to ten guys doing the migration and other things. Recently, we did a project where there were close to 1,000 servers that have to be moved to the public cloud and we implemented Azure Backup for all of them. It didn't take much of our time since the management and the interface are very easy and you don't have much to do over there. 

It's a slow process. You're not moving all of them at one shot. We'll do 15 to 20 servers in a batch, which we are doing based on the applications. One application, we are going to move at a given time. If there are 15 to 20 servers within one particular application, it takes hardly a few hours to go and do everything. However, if there are many, many applications, it will take time.

We handle the implementation for our clients. 

The ROI is good based on the cost itself. The upfront cost itself is less and it includes your licensing and hosting and everything. There are no other industry-standard backups like it. The licensing costs are very high and you need it in front of all of that. It is hosted on the cloud. Even if you go with something which is hosted on the cloud, the license cost is high. If you compare it with other costs of solutions, Microsoft has done a good job of providing a native backup solution with very affordable pricing. 

The cost for Azure backup is purely based on the size of the data and the virtual machine as well as the number of virtual machines. It's around $10 to $15 per month per virtual machine, along with something extra based on the size of the data. It covers 500 GBs or something like that. If you go beyond that for a virtual machine, you will have to pay extra.

We're Microsoft partners and we do have many customers who are using the Microsoft platform.

We are always using the latest version of the solution. 

It's on-cloud and in some servers on-premises, which we are taking from the backup cloud. It's mostly for the infrastructure sitting on the cloud.

The solution should be an eight out of ten.

Potential users should actually look for compatibility. With any service that you talk about in a public cloud, one should first understand the requirement and then they should do some sort of research or they should, if they're new to it, have a look into the compatibility and the articles. Those are provided by Microsoft in terms of basic requirements or constraints that they have. They have a lot of constraints around. You have to be very careful which geography it is. What is the cost and what kinds of constraints do they have in terms of compatibility with any operating system or application? Those are the four or five things that one should look at before considering it as a solution or implementation.

Azure Backup is a mandatory service. We have recommended every client to use Azure Backup. Many resources and databases are being backed up on Azure in different zones and regions.

We have multiple clients. Some of them have data centers. They have 100 to 200 virtual machines. We have set backups, snapshots, and replication for every machine in different zones.

Our client’s infrastructure is protected by the tool.

The product must improve on a database level. It should be made more application-aware.

I have been using the solution for one year.

If we have zone-redundant architecture, the stability is ten out of ten. If not, then it will be an eight out of ten. Overall, I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability a ten out of ten. Our clients are small, medium, and enterprise-level businesses.

Sometimes, we meet technically sound people. Sometimes, we don’t. The support team calls within 30 minutes if we launch a ticket. The support team should contain more highly technical people. Overall, the support is good.

Positive

The tool is very easy to deploy and configure. A person who understands networks can deploy and configure the product very easily. If a person has a clear concept of networks, they can work on any cloud solution. I rate the ease of setup a nine out of ten. We have many clients.

We have replicated our clients’ resources from on-premise to cloud and from cloud to cloud. The time taken for deployment varies for every client. If a company has 100 VMs, the tool can be deployed in two days. We can configure the tool with Azure CLI.

It is a very cheap cloud solution.

The solution is improving day by day. New features are introduced, and existing features are updated regularly. Oracle and Azure have some partnerships. They have signed an agreement. Some of our clients have data centers, and we configure their applications on Azure cloud. Azure clients also want to configure their applications in different zones and regions. Azure Backup is good. It can protect the resources of a company. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.