No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Arcserve Cloud Direct vs Azure Site Recovery comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Arcserve Cloud Direct
Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service
17th
Average Rating
5.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.2
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Backup (52nd)
Azure Site Recovery
Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service
1st
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Disaster Recovery as a Service category, the mindshare of Arcserve Cloud Direct is 2.4%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure Site Recovery is 7.9%, down from 18.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Disaster Recovery as a Service Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Azure Site Recovery7.9%
Arcserve Cloud Direct2.4%
Other89.7%
Disaster Recovery as a Service
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1321896 - PeerSpot reviewer
Junior Service Desk Operator at a cloud solution provider with 11-50 employees
Good backup retention but it is not a reliable platform and it doesn't giving any sort of alerts that things are not working
StorageCraft wasn't getting full backup coverage. It was backing up around 1 to 2% of the points. It was not a reliable platform and it wasn't giving any sort of alerts that things were not working. The majority of stuff wasn't backed up, so we really weren't happy with them. That's when we went on the look for a new solution.
reviewer2142519 - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Long-term user praises cost savings and reliability of disaster recovery solutions
There is only one thing to note: the agent has to be up-to-date when SCCM or any third-party tools are doing patching activities. If their agent version is mismatched and the health status is critical, you will not be able to perform your Azure Site Recovery. Recently, I worked with a mass issue related to Recovery Services Vault, and the VM support engineers are taking a lot of time to extend support to the customer. When you raise a call, they wait too long, and even if you request an engineer to set up a call for severity B cases, they are not ready to communicate over the phone, preferring email instead.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The backup retention was pretty good, and being able to archive users who had been backed up is good functionality because even if they've been deactivated it'll keep the backups and keep them protected."
"You can create automation to move workloads and redirect traffic to another region."
"We use the tool for business continuity purposes."
"The setup is quite easy, just requiring the creation of a vault."
"The solution is secure, reliable, and scalable."
"Azure Site Recovery's automated file synchronization was a game-changer in managing legacy systems."
"We looked at Dell EMC but I think we went with Site Recovery because it fits better with cloud and they're moving a lot of their workload to cloud like Azure, and want something that is seamlessly integrated."
"It’s native to Azure and does exactly what it’s designed to do—recover one site to another without creating all the VMs on that site. This helps reduce costs on the secondary site."
"The most useful thing is that it provides a snapshot of your environment in about 15 minutes, it is stable, and it always works, and it is also scalable and easy to set up."
 

Cons

"StorageCraft wasn't getting full backup coverage. It was backing up around one to 2% of the points. It was not a reliable platform and it wasn't giving any sort of alerts that things were not working."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"There is room for improvement in the release of patches, such as ensuring they are properly managed to avoid outages."
"we lack a straightforward method to automate the restart of services, which can be quite time-consuming."
"The flexibility of Azure Site Recovery regarding integration with different IT environments is limited; it is purely an Azure platform service for business continuity, not meant for integration with other services."
"The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution could be improved."
"Azure Site Recovery's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability."
"It is for site-to-site replication. When something goes wrong on your site, you only get 15 minutes before it also goes wrong on your replicated site. There should be some way to be able to say that we want to restore it, but we want to restore it to the version from yesterday. It should support versioning. I would also like to see real-time scanning for advanced threat protection, more straightforward billing, and quicker turnaround on the tech support."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"They have a license to pay."
"Azure Site Recovery is affordable."
"Azure Site Recovery is neither very expensive nor very cheap."
"I'm not sure about the Azure Site Recovery pricing, but my organization gets monthly bills from providers."
"It should have more straightforward billing. The billing was what got funky. It was really cheap. We would pay based on the usage. We paid around $225 a month for site-to-site replication."
"The tool is expensive. What is expensive to me might not be expensive to you. As I mentioned, we seek ways to reduce our costs. If the price goes down, that would be great. I rate the tool's pricing a six out of ten."
"The tool's licensing is yearly and not expensive."
"Azure Site Recovery is a very reasonably priced product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery as a Service solutions are best for your needs.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
23%
Comms Service Provider
17%
Healthcare Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Outsourcing Company
10%
Construction Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise14
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Site Recovery?
A major advantage is that you do not want to pay any more for huge costs to build a DR site. It is very flexible and will save your cost.
What needs improvement with Azure Site Recovery?
The flexibility of Azure Site Recovery regarding integration with different IT environments is limited; it is purely an Azure platform service for business continuity, not meant for integration wit...
What is your primary use case for Azure Site Recovery?
My main use case for Azure Site Recovery is that we are doing cross-region disaster recovery and processing.
 

Also Known As

StorageCraft Cloud Services, StorageCraft Disaster Recovery Services, StorageCraft Cloud Backup, Arcserve Cloud Services, Zetta Cloud Backup
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Lion
Russell Reynolds Associates, Union Insurance, Rackspace
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Broadcom, datto and others in Disaster Recovery as a Service. Updated: October 2026.
920,929 professionals have used our research since 2012.