![AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs. AWS Server Migration Service [EOL] report](https://www.peerspot.com/assets/media/images/icons/pdf-c33db68f.svg){kind=icon}
Some features that I personally feel can be improved are more simplified monitoring and reporting. As I previously mentioned, the console shows the replication status. If it had more detailed dashboards or built-in reports for DR readiness, it would make it easier for the teams to track everything in one place. Another improvement would be cost visibility and optimization guidance in optimizing the cost and also giving us visibility of it. Because the staging resources and replication storage are running continuously, it would be very helpful for organizations and users if AWS provided clearer cost insights, recommendations, and remediations to optimize the DR environment. It would also be useful if AWS added more automation options for application-level recovery, such as easier ways to handle IP changes, domain name system (DNS) updates, or application dependencies during failover. Additionally, we can simplify the setup and configuration process. For someone new to the service, understanding the staging settings, launch templates, and networking configurations can take some time. Setup simplicity and more detailed monitoring and alerting features would be beneficial. If we could add that, we can easily track the replication health, lag, and potential issues. Instead of relying on other additional tools for monitoring and alerting features, we can rely on AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery itself.
![OpenText Migrate vs AWS Server Migration Service [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_30/durwsc3z47nd2vx5dltpkmpv49gk.jpg?_a=BACAGSGT){kind=small}
![Nutanix Move vs AWS Server Migration Service [EOL] Logo](https://images.peerspot.com/image/upload/c_scale,dpr_3.0,f_auto,q_100,w_30/haosg86qw426gprr0w60eovzmyaw.png?_a=BACAGSGT){kind=small}
