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

Azure Site Recovery vs IBM Disaster Recovery Services 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

Azure Site Recovery
Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service
2nd
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
26
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM Disaster Recovery Services
Ranking in Disaster Recovery as a Service
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Disaster Recovery as a Service category, the mindshare of Azure Site Recovery is 14.3%, down from 21.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Disaster Recovery Services is 4.5%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Disaster Recovery as a Service Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Azure Site Recovery14.3%
IBM Disaster Recovery Services4.5%
Other81.2%
Disaster Recovery as a Service
 

Featured Reviews

AP
IT Manager at NTT DATA
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.
Şefik Mert Polatay - PeerSpot reviewer
General manager at Atlas Consulting Bilisim Hizmetleri Ltd.
Ease of use, performance, availability, and scalability
The initial setup is very easy, user-friendly, and not complex. It mostly comes with all installed, an operating system, database, and security, all included in Power Systems. So users can easily install, configure, and use it. It's integrated with other systems. You can run different systems from IBM Power Systems, AIX Linux, or IBM I operating system. It's also integrated into Windows systems and other databases and servers.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"A major benefit is that you do not want to pay any more for huge costs to build a DR site."
"Provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery."
"Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery."
"Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs."
"Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration."
"We use the tool for business continuity purposes."
"Despite the cost concerns and downtime management, I would still recommend Azure Site Recovery."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"Disaster Recovery Services is stable."
"The solution works well for very large organizations. It can scale quite well."
"The initial setup is very easy and user-friendly."
 

Cons

"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."
"It could include more of a backup and recovery."
"Currently, Azure Site Recovery does not support shared disk options. Moreover, it does not support services like AppConfig or App Services."
"In the newest version of Azure Site Recovery, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement."
"When it runs, it runs well but when it doesn't run, the solution needs to make it clearer as to why and what the troubleshooting process is. All this would be possible if the error logging was streamlined a bit."
"We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor."
"The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline."
"One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately."
"The infrastructure level of IBM's recovery systems could be improved."
"Disaster Recovery Services could provide better value for money."
"Stability could always be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"They have a license to pay."
"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."
"Azure Site Recovery is affordable."
"Azure Site Recovery is a very reasonably priced product."
"I'm not sure about the Azure Site Recovery pricing, but my organization gets monthly bills from providers."
"Azure Site Recovery is neither very expensive nor very cheap."
"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's licensing is yearly and not expensive."
"Disaster Recovery Services is expensive."
"The pricing of the solution is based on the scale of the project or business. It's based on the server amount and the amount of data being stored. For our client, based on the amount of data they have, it may be around $20,000 USD. It could get much more expensive on the customer side."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Disaster Recovery as a Service solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Insurance Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Azure Site Recovery?
Azure Site Recovery allows my company to save around 30 percent of the time on every VM that we need to back up and restore.
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 experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Disaster Recovery Services?
The pricing is perfect. It's not expensive because it's all-inclusive. The operating system, database, security, different file systems. So, overall, it's cheaper than Oracle or UNIX systems with O...
What is your primary use case for IBM Disaster Recovery Services?
The use case is for high availability and disaster recovery.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Russell Reynolds Associates, Union Insurance, Rackspace
i-Virtualize, QD, Continuum Managed Services LLC, Royal Arctic Line, Department of Science and Technology of the Republic of the Philippines, Idwala Industrial Holdings Limited, A-Plant c.a.r.u.s. Information Technology GmbH Hannover, eASPNet Taiwan Inc., Mobile Mini Inc., TriDatum Solutions Inc., M7 Managed Services Ltd., Hospital de la Concepci‹n
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure Site Recovery vs. IBM Disaster Recovery Services and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.