Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service Market by Service Type (Backup And Restore, Hot Standby, Pilot Light), Deployment Model (Hybrid Cloud, Private Cloud, Public Cloud), Industry Vertical - Global Forecast 2025-2032
Description
The Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service Market was valued at USD 1.30 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow to USD 1.44 billion in 2025, with a CAGR of 10.87%, reaching USD 2.98 billion by 2032.
A strategic introduction highlighting why modern Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service is now a cross-functional business priority tied to resilience and risk management
Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service has evolved from a niche IT function into a critical business capability that underpins organizational resilience. Today’s executive teams recognize that the ability to restore operations and minimize downtime is intrinsically linked to financial continuity, customer trust, and regulatory compliance. As enterprise architectures grow more distributed and attack surfaces expand, disaster recovery is no longer exclusively an infrastructure concern; it is a business imperative that requires collaboration across risk, security, finance, and operations.
In this context, DRaaS solutions are judged not only on technical capabilities but also on their alignment with business recovery objectives, compliance regimes, and operational workflows. Decision-makers are demanding solutions that integrate seamlessly with cloud-native workloads, hybrid deployments, and legacy systems while offering predictable recovery time and recovery point objectives that resonate with stakeholders across the organization. Moreover, the rise of managed orchestration and automated recovery playbooks means that technical reliability must be paired with clear governance and measurable service levels.
This introduction sets the stage for a deeper examination of the forces reshaping the DRaaS landscape, including technological innovation, regulatory shifts, and commercial pressures. It frames the inquiry around value realization for the enterprise, emphasizing the need for pragmatic decision frameworks that balance cost, risk, and speed to recovery.
How cloud-native innovations, automation, and evolving threat dynamics are collectively redefining Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service architectures and decision criteria
The landscape for Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service is undergoing transformative shifts driven by several convergent forces. First, the maturation of cloud-native technologies and containerization has made workload portability more practical, enabling recovery approaches that can span public, private, and hybrid environments. Second, automation and infrastructure-as-code practices have enabled repeatable recovery playbooks, reducing manual intervention and accelerating mean time to recovery. These technological advances are reshaping vendor offerings and customer expectations alike, moving the market toward outcomes-based contracts rather than purely capacity-based models.
Concurrently, threat vectors have evolved; ransomware and supply chain disruptions have elevated the strategic importance of immutable backups, rapid failover capabilities, and third-party validation of recovery processes. This requires providers to demonstrate end-to-end recoverability through continuous testing, chaos engineering, and realistic simulation exercises that validate recovery under real operational conditions. In addition, regulatory and data residency pressures are prompting organizations to adopt sophisticated orchestration that respects jurisdictional constraints while maintaining resilience across borders.
These shifts are leading to tighter partnerships between DRaaS providers and cloud platform operators, enhanced focus on interoperability standards, and a growing preference for modular architectures that allow enterprises to mix and match backup and standby strategies according to criticality and cost constraints. As a result, the next generation of DRaaS will be defined by composability, verifiable recoverability, and an emphasis on aligning recovery designs with business continuity priorities.
Assessing the indirect and direct effects of United States tariff adjustments in 2025 on procurement strategies, vendor relationships, and recoverability architectures
Tariff policy adjustments in the United States for 2025 introduce an additional layer of complexity into procurement and supply chain planning for Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service. Changes in tariff structures can influence hardware costs, networking equipment prices, and the economics of outsourcing recovery infrastructure. Procurement teams must therefore evaluate contract terms, capital vs. operating expenditure trade-offs, and the potential for localized sourcing to mitigate tariff-driven cost pressures.
Beyond direct procurement costs, tariffs can alter the dynamics of global vendor relationships. Suppliers that rely on cross-border component flows may face margin compression or be compelled to redesign product configurations to maintain price competitiveness. In turn, this can affect vendor roadmaps and the availability of certain hardware-accelerated recovery appliances in specific regions. For organizations with multi-jurisdictional recovery strategies, these shifts stress the importance of flexible architectures that can substitute cloud-native or software-defined alternatives when hardware procurement becomes more constrained.
Consequently, strategic planners should incorporate tariff sensitivity into vendor evaluation matrices and scenario planning exercises. This involves assessing supplier diversification strategies, contractual protections for unforeseen tariff changes, and the feasibility of leveraging cloud-based backups and replication to offset capital-intensive hardware dependencies. By anticipating how tariffs may ripple through procurement, provisioning, and support channels, enterprises can maintain resilience without compromising long-term strategic objectives.
Deep segmentation insights that map service types, deployment models, organization size, and industry-specific requirements to effective disaster recovery strategies
Effective segmentation insight begins with an appreciation for how service types map to recovery objectives. Backup and restore options range from file-level backups suitable for granular restoration to image-based backups that enable full-system recovery, each serving different recovery time expectations and operational complexity. Hot standby configurations provide near-instant failover for mission-critical workloads, while warm standby and pilot light approaches offer graduated trade-offs between cost and readiness. Understanding these trade-offs allows organizations to design tiered recovery pathways aligned with business priorities.
Deployment model choices further refine how recovery is executed. Hybrid cloud approaches combine on-premises control with cloud scalability to meet stringent compliance and performance requirements, while private cloud deployments keep sensitive workloads within controlled boundaries. Public cloud options offer rapid scalability and global footprint advantages but require careful attention to data residency and cross-region replication strategies. Organization size also influences design choices: large enterprises often favor customized orchestration and multi-region replication, whereas small and medium enterprises may prioritize managed, turnkey services that reduce operational overhead.
Industry vertical nuances are critical for tailoring recovery designs. Financial services and insurance demand rigorous recovery validation and demonstrable audit trails, higher education and K-12 require cost-effective continuity for distributed campuses, and energy & utilities need deterministic recovery for operational technology and critical infrastructure. Government entities span central, defense, and local needs with distinct classification and sovereignty requirements. Healthcare providers, medical device firms, and pharmaceutical companies must balance clinical continuity with patient privacy and regulatory compliance. IT and telecom service providers focus on network resilience and service-level continuity, manufacturing sectors such as automotive and electronics emphasize production line uptime, and retail models must support both brick-and-mortar and e-commerce continuity. These layered segmentation insights enable program architects to craft differentiated DRaaS strategies that match technical recovery patterns to business and regulatory constraints.
Regional dynamics and regulatory nuances across the Americas, Europe Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific that influence disaster recovery architectures and procurement
Regional dynamics shape how Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service is procured, deployed, and governed across global enterprises. In the Americas, regulatory frameworks and a mature cloud ecosystem have accelerated adoption of cloud-native recovery practices, with a significant emphasis on automation, compliance reporting, and integration with corporate risk management frameworks. North American organizations often prioritize interoperability with dominant public cloud platforms, while Latin American enterprises may focus on local data sovereignty and reliable network pathways for cross-border replication.
In Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory diversity and data protection regimes drive a strong focus on jurisdictional controls and encryption in motion and at rest. Organizations in this region frequently adopt private or hybrid cloud architectures to meet sovereignty requirements while leveraging regional cloud zones for disaster recovery. The Middle East and Africa exhibit growing investment in resiliency as digital infrastructure expands, with an emphasis on partnerships that combine local knowledge with global engineering capabilities.
Asia-Pacific presents a varied landscape where rapid digitization coexists with divergent regulatory stances. Major markets in the region are investing heavily in resilient cloud infrastructure, while emerging markets are developing tailored approaches that balance cost, latency, and local compliance. Across all geographies, network resilience, latency considerations for critical workloads, and the availability of skilled service providers influence the design and expectations of DRaaS engagements. These regional insights inform how recovery architectures are optimized for legal, operational, and performance constraints.
How leading disaster recovery providers are differentiating through orchestration, continuous validation, and outcome-centric service models to meet enterprise resilience needs
Leading vendors and service providers in the DRaaS ecosystem are converging toward a set of capabilities that buyers now treat as baseline expectations. These core capabilities include automated orchestration, continuous validation, cross-platform interoperability, and clear recovery SLAs tied to business outcomes. Providers are differentiating through industry-specific templates, managed recovery services that reduce internal operational burdens, and professional services that help with runbooks, compliance attestations, and testing programs.
Strategic partnerships between DRaaS vendors and cloud platform operators have become central to delivery models, enabling faster time to recovery through native integrations and regional footprint advantages. Additionally, a class of specialized providers focuses on compliance-sensitive sectors with hardened offerings that emphasize encryption, auditability, and sovereign control. Meanwhile, systems integrators and managed service partners play an essential role in bundling recovery into broader continuity programs, offering end-to-end lifecycle services from architecture through operationalization and ongoing testing.
Investment in continuous testing frameworks and third-party validation capabilities is a notable trend among leading companies, as stakeholders increasingly require proof points to demonstrate recoverability. These firms also emphasize modular commercial models that support phased adoption, allowing customers to pilot image-based recovery or pilot light arrangements before scaling to hot standby configurations. Collectively, vendor strategies are shifting toward composable, validated, and outcome-centric offerings that align technology execution with business resilience objectives.
Actionable recommendations for executives to align recovery objectives, adopt multi-modal deployment strategies, and operationalize validated disaster recovery programs
Industry leaders should pursue a pragmatic set of actions to strengthen recovery readiness while managing cost and complexity. First, align recovery objectives with business impact analyses to create tiered recovery targets that prioritize mission-critical systems without overinvesting in lower-value workloads. This alignment ensures that recovery designs-whether backup and restore, pilot light, warm standby, or hot standby-are applied where they deliver the greatest operational and financial benefit.
Next, adopt a multi-modal deployment strategy that combines hybrid and cloud-native approaches to address jurisdictional and performance requirements. Investment in automation and infrastructure-as-code for recovery orchestration will reduce human error and shorten recovery timelines. Leaders should also insist on continuous validation of recovery processes through scheduled testing and simulated failovers; these practices provide credible assurance to executives and auditors alike.
Vendor management is another priority. Implement contractual clauses that require demonstrable recoverability, clear SLAs tied to business outcomes, and provisions for tariff and supply-chain contingencies. Finally, cultivate cross-functional governance that includes IT, security, legal, and business units to ensure recovery plans are comprehensive, actionable, and rehearsed. By following these steps, organizations can make measurable progress toward resilient operations that withstand technological, geopolitical, and threat-related disruptions.
A transparent mixed-methods research methodology combining primary interviews, secondary analysis, triangulation, and expert validation to ensure reproducible and actionable findings
The research underlying these insights relied on a structured methodology combining primary and secondary data collection, qualitative interviews, and rigorous triangulation to ensure validity and relevance. Primary research included in-depth interviews with technology leaders, continuity planners, cloud architects, and procurement specialists across diverse industries to capture real-world practices, pain points, and success factors. These conversations provided detailed accounts of recovery design choices, testing cadences, and vendor engagement models.
Secondary research encompassed an extensive review of publicly available technical documentation, industry whitepapers, regulatory guidance, and vendor product briefs to map capability trends and terminology. Data points were cross-validated through multiple independent sources and synthesized into thematic findings. Analytical techniques included capability mapping, scenario analysis to stress-test assumptions under tariff and geopolitical contingencies, and comparative evaluation of deployment models against industry-specific compliance requirements.
To maintain rigor, all findings were subjected to expert validation workshops with practitioners representing financial services, healthcare, energy, and public sector organizations. The methodology prioritized reproducibility and transparency, enabling buyers and decision-makers to trace conclusions back to interview inputs, documented references, and analytical logic while preserving anonymity and confidentiality of participants.
Conclusive insights emphasizing the strategic imperative of integrated recovery planning, composable architectures, and verifiable testing to secure enterprise continuity
In closing, Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service must be treated as a strategic enabler rather than a technical backstop. Organizations that integrate recovery into broader risk and continuity planning, adopt composable recovery architectures, and demand continuous validation from providers will be best positioned to maintain operations under pressure. The interplay of technological innovation, evolving threat landscapes, and policy changes such as tariff adjustments means that agility and foresight are essential to maintain resilience.
Decision-makers should prioritize clarity in recovery objectives, apply segmentation-aware designs that reflect service type, deployment model, organization size, and industry nuances, and tailor procurement strategies to regional regulatory realities. Vendors that embed automation, interoperability, and verifiable testing into their offerings will become preferred partners for enterprises seeking measurable assurances. Ultimately, resilience is an enterprise capability achieved through deliberate planning, disciplined testing, and executive sponsorship that keeps recovery outcomes aligned with business priorities.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
A strategic introduction highlighting why modern Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service is now a cross-functional business priority tied to resilience and risk management
Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service has evolved from a niche IT function into a critical business capability that underpins organizational resilience. Today’s executive teams recognize that the ability to restore operations and minimize downtime is intrinsically linked to financial continuity, customer trust, and regulatory compliance. As enterprise architectures grow more distributed and attack surfaces expand, disaster recovery is no longer exclusively an infrastructure concern; it is a business imperative that requires collaboration across risk, security, finance, and operations.
In this context, DRaaS solutions are judged not only on technical capabilities but also on their alignment with business recovery objectives, compliance regimes, and operational workflows. Decision-makers are demanding solutions that integrate seamlessly with cloud-native workloads, hybrid deployments, and legacy systems while offering predictable recovery time and recovery point objectives that resonate with stakeholders across the organization. Moreover, the rise of managed orchestration and automated recovery playbooks means that technical reliability must be paired with clear governance and measurable service levels.
This introduction sets the stage for a deeper examination of the forces reshaping the DRaaS landscape, including technological innovation, regulatory shifts, and commercial pressures. It frames the inquiry around value realization for the enterprise, emphasizing the need for pragmatic decision frameworks that balance cost, risk, and speed to recovery.
How cloud-native innovations, automation, and evolving threat dynamics are collectively redefining Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service architectures and decision criteria
The landscape for Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service is undergoing transformative shifts driven by several convergent forces. First, the maturation of cloud-native technologies and containerization has made workload portability more practical, enabling recovery approaches that can span public, private, and hybrid environments. Second, automation and infrastructure-as-code practices have enabled repeatable recovery playbooks, reducing manual intervention and accelerating mean time to recovery. These technological advances are reshaping vendor offerings and customer expectations alike, moving the market toward outcomes-based contracts rather than purely capacity-based models.
Concurrently, threat vectors have evolved; ransomware and supply chain disruptions have elevated the strategic importance of immutable backups, rapid failover capabilities, and third-party validation of recovery processes. This requires providers to demonstrate end-to-end recoverability through continuous testing, chaos engineering, and realistic simulation exercises that validate recovery under real operational conditions. In addition, regulatory and data residency pressures are prompting organizations to adopt sophisticated orchestration that respects jurisdictional constraints while maintaining resilience across borders.
These shifts are leading to tighter partnerships between DRaaS providers and cloud platform operators, enhanced focus on interoperability standards, and a growing preference for modular architectures that allow enterprises to mix and match backup and standby strategies according to criticality and cost constraints. As a result, the next generation of DRaaS will be defined by composability, verifiable recoverability, and an emphasis on aligning recovery designs with business continuity priorities.
Assessing the indirect and direct effects of United States tariff adjustments in 2025 on procurement strategies, vendor relationships, and recoverability architectures
Tariff policy adjustments in the United States for 2025 introduce an additional layer of complexity into procurement and supply chain planning for Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service. Changes in tariff structures can influence hardware costs, networking equipment prices, and the economics of outsourcing recovery infrastructure. Procurement teams must therefore evaluate contract terms, capital vs. operating expenditure trade-offs, and the potential for localized sourcing to mitigate tariff-driven cost pressures.
Beyond direct procurement costs, tariffs can alter the dynamics of global vendor relationships. Suppliers that rely on cross-border component flows may face margin compression or be compelled to redesign product configurations to maintain price competitiveness. In turn, this can affect vendor roadmaps and the availability of certain hardware-accelerated recovery appliances in specific regions. For organizations with multi-jurisdictional recovery strategies, these shifts stress the importance of flexible architectures that can substitute cloud-native or software-defined alternatives when hardware procurement becomes more constrained.
Consequently, strategic planners should incorporate tariff sensitivity into vendor evaluation matrices and scenario planning exercises. This involves assessing supplier diversification strategies, contractual protections for unforeseen tariff changes, and the feasibility of leveraging cloud-based backups and replication to offset capital-intensive hardware dependencies. By anticipating how tariffs may ripple through procurement, provisioning, and support channels, enterprises can maintain resilience without compromising long-term strategic objectives.
Deep segmentation insights that map service types, deployment models, organization size, and industry-specific requirements to effective disaster recovery strategies
Effective segmentation insight begins with an appreciation for how service types map to recovery objectives. Backup and restore options range from file-level backups suitable for granular restoration to image-based backups that enable full-system recovery, each serving different recovery time expectations and operational complexity. Hot standby configurations provide near-instant failover for mission-critical workloads, while warm standby and pilot light approaches offer graduated trade-offs between cost and readiness. Understanding these trade-offs allows organizations to design tiered recovery pathways aligned with business priorities.
Deployment model choices further refine how recovery is executed. Hybrid cloud approaches combine on-premises control with cloud scalability to meet stringent compliance and performance requirements, while private cloud deployments keep sensitive workloads within controlled boundaries. Public cloud options offer rapid scalability and global footprint advantages but require careful attention to data residency and cross-region replication strategies. Organization size also influences design choices: large enterprises often favor customized orchestration and multi-region replication, whereas small and medium enterprises may prioritize managed, turnkey services that reduce operational overhead.
Industry vertical nuances are critical for tailoring recovery designs. Financial services and insurance demand rigorous recovery validation and demonstrable audit trails, higher education and K-12 require cost-effective continuity for distributed campuses, and energy & utilities need deterministic recovery for operational technology and critical infrastructure. Government entities span central, defense, and local needs with distinct classification and sovereignty requirements. Healthcare providers, medical device firms, and pharmaceutical companies must balance clinical continuity with patient privacy and regulatory compliance. IT and telecom service providers focus on network resilience and service-level continuity, manufacturing sectors such as automotive and electronics emphasize production line uptime, and retail models must support both brick-and-mortar and e-commerce continuity. These layered segmentation insights enable program architects to craft differentiated DRaaS strategies that match technical recovery patterns to business and regulatory constraints.
Regional dynamics and regulatory nuances across the Americas, Europe Middle East & Africa, and Asia-Pacific that influence disaster recovery architectures and procurement
Regional dynamics shape how Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service is procured, deployed, and governed across global enterprises. In the Americas, regulatory frameworks and a mature cloud ecosystem have accelerated adoption of cloud-native recovery practices, with a significant emphasis on automation, compliance reporting, and integration with corporate risk management frameworks. North American organizations often prioritize interoperability with dominant public cloud platforms, while Latin American enterprises may focus on local data sovereignty and reliable network pathways for cross-border replication.
In Europe, Middle East & Africa, regulatory diversity and data protection regimes drive a strong focus on jurisdictional controls and encryption in motion and at rest. Organizations in this region frequently adopt private or hybrid cloud architectures to meet sovereignty requirements while leveraging regional cloud zones for disaster recovery. The Middle East and Africa exhibit growing investment in resiliency as digital infrastructure expands, with an emphasis on partnerships that combine local knowledge with global engineering capabilities.
Asia-Pacific presents a varied landscape where rapid digitization coexists with divergent regulatory stances. Major markets in the region are investing heavily in resilient cloud infrastructure, while emerging markets are developing tailored approaches that balance cost, latency, and local compliance. Across all geographies, network resilience, latency considerations for critical workloads, and the availability of skilled service providers influence the design and expectations of DRaaS engagements. These regional insights inform how recovery architectures are optimized for legal, operational, and performance constraints.
How leading disaster recovery providers are differentiating through orchestration, continuous validation, and outcome-centric service models to meet enterprise resilience needs
Leading vendors and service providers in the DRaaS ecosystem are converging toward a set of capabilities that buyers now treat as baseline expectations. These core capabilities include automated orchestration, continuous validation, cross-platform interoperability, and clear recovery SLAs tied to business outcomes. Providers are differentiating through industry-specific templates, managed recovery services that reduce internal operational burdens, and professional services that help with runbooks, compliance attestations, and testing programs.
Strategic partnerships between DRaaS vendors and cloud platform operators have become central to delivery models, enabling faster time to recovery through native integrations and regional footprint advantages. Additionally, a class of specialized providers focuses on compliance-sensitive sectors with hardened offerings that emphasize encryption, auditability, and sovereign control. Meanwhile, systems integrators and managed service partners play an essential role in bundling recovery into broader continuity programs, offering end-to-end lifecycle services from architecture through operationalization and ongoing testing.
Investment in continuous testing frameworks and third-party validation capabilities is a notable trend among leading companies, as stakeholders increasingly require proof points to demonstrate recoverability. These firms also emphasize modular commercial models that support phased adoption, allowing customers to pilot image-based recovery or pilot light arrangements before scaling to hot standby configurations. Collectively, vendor strategies are shifting toward composable, validated, and outcome-centric offerings that align technology execution with business resilience objectives.
Actionable recommendations for executives to align recovery objectives, adopt multi-modal deployment strategies, and operationalize validated disaster recovery programs
Industry leaders should pursue a pragmatic set of actions to strengthen recovery readiness while managing cost and complexity. First, align recovery objectives with business impact analyses to create tiered recovery targets that prioritize mission-critical systems without overinvesting in lower-value workloads. This alignment ensures that recovery designs-whether backup and restore, pilot light, warm standby, or hot standby-are applied where they deliver the greatest operational and financial benefit.
Next, adopt a multi-modal deployment strategy that combines hybrid and cloud-native approaches to address jurisdictional and performance requirements. Investment in automation and infrastructure-as-code for recovery orchestration will reduce human error and shorten recovery timelines. Leaders should also insist on continuous validation of recovery processes through scheduled testing and simulated failovers; these practices provide credible assurance to executives and auditors alike.
Vendor management is another priority. Implement contractual clauses that require demonstrable recoverability, clear SLAs tied to business outcomes, and provisions for tariff and supply-chain contingencies. Finally, cultivate cross-functional governance that includes IT, security, legal, and business units to ensure recovery plans are comprehensive, actionable, and rehearsed. By following these steps, organizations can make measurable progress toward resilient operations that withstand technological, geopolitical, and threat-related disruptions.
A transparent mixed-methods research methodology combining primary interviews, secondary analysis, triangulation, and expert validation to ensure reproducible and actionable findings
The research underlying these insights relied on a structured methodology combining primary and secondary data collection, qualitative interviews, and rigorous triangulation to ensure validity and relevance. Primary research included in-depth interviews with technology leaders, continuity planners, cloud architects, and procurement specialists across diverse industries to capture real-world practices, pain points, and success factors. These conversations provided detailed accounts of recovery design choices, testing cadences, and vendor engagement models.
Secondary research encompassed an extensive review of publicly available technical documentation, industry whitepapers, regulatory guidance, and vendor product briefs to map capability trends and terminology. Data points were cross-validated through multiple independent sources and synthesized into thematic findings. Analytical techniques included capability mapping, scenario analysis to stress-test assumptions under tariff and geopolitical contingencies, and comparative evaluation of deployment models against industry-specific compliance requirements.
To maintain rigor, all findings were subjected to expert validation workshops with practitioners representing financial services, healthcare, energy, and public sector organizations. The methodology prioritized reproducibility and transparency, enabling buyers and decision-makers to trace conclusions back to interview inputs, documented references, and analytical logic while preserving anonymity and confidentiality of participants.
Conclusive insights emphasizing the strategic imperative of integrated recovery planning, composable architectures, and verifiable testing to secure enterprise continuity
In closing, Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service must be treated as a strategic enabler rather than a technical backstop. Organizations that integrate recovery into broader risk and continuity planning, adopt composable recovery architectures, and demand continuous validation from providers will be best positioned to maintain operations under pressure. The interplay of technological innovation, evolving threat landscapes, and policy changes such as tariff adjustments means that agility and foresight are essential to maintain resilience.
Decision-makers should prioritize clarity in recovery objectives, apply segmentation-aware designs that reflect service type, deployment model, organization size, and industry nuances, and tailor procurement strategies to regional regulatory realities. Vendors that embed automation, interoperability, and verifiable testing into their offerings will become preferred partners for enterprises seeking measurable assurances. Ultimately, resilience is an enterprise capability achieved through deliberate planning, disciplined testing, and executive sponsorship that keeps recovery outcomes aligned with business priorities.
Note: PDF & Excel + Online Access - 1 Year
Table of Contents
182 Pages
- 1. Preface
- 1.1. Objectives of the Study
- 1.2. Market Segmentation & Coverage
- 1.3. Years Considered for the Study
- 1.4. Currency
- 1.5. Language
- 1.6. Stakeholders
- 2. Research Methodology
- 3. Executive Summary
- 4. Market Overview
- 5. Market Insights
- 5.1. Adoption of multi-cloud disaster-recovery-as-a-service strategies to ensure redundancy across AWS, Azure and Google Cloud environments
- 5.2. Integration of AI-driven predictive analytics into DRaaS orchestration to proactively minimize downtime and data loss
- 5.3. Emergence of serverless disaster recovery solutions automating failover processes and reducing operational overhead
- 5.4. Growing demand for continuous data protection with real-time replication to achieve near-zero recovery point objectives
- 5.5. Expansion of edge computing disaster recovery offerings to support localized IoT data protection and low-latency failover
- 5.6. Enhancement of DRaaS platforms with built-in cyber resilience features to defend against ransomware and advanced threats
- 5.7. Development of immutable blockchain-based backups for enhanced data integrity and tamper-proof disaster recovery
- 6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025
- 7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025
- 8. Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service Market, by Service Type
- 8.1. Backup And Restore
- 8.1.1. File Level Backup
- 8.1.2. Image Based Backup
- 8.2. Hot Standby
- 8.3. Pilot Light
- 8.4. Warm Standby
- 9. Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service Market, by Deployment Model
- 9.1. Hybrid Cloud
- 9.2. Private Cloud
- 9.3. Public Cloud
- 10. Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service Market, by Industry Vertical
- 10.1. Bfsi
- 10.1.1. Banking
- 10.1.2. Insurance
- 10.2. Education
- 10.2.1. Higher Education
- 10.2.2. K-12
- 10.3. Energy & Utilities
- 10.3.1. Oil And Gas
- 10.3.2. Power Generation
- 10.3.3. Water And Waste Management
- 10.4. Government
- 10.4.1. Central Government
- 10.4.2. Defense
- 10.4.3. State And Local Government
- 10.5. Healthcare
- 10.5.1. Healthcare Providers
- 10.5.2. Medical Devices
- 10.5.3. Pharmaceuticals
- 10.6. It & Telecom
- 10.6.1. It Services
- 10.6.2. Telecom Services
- 10.7. Manufacturing
- 10.7.1. Automotive
- 10.7.2. Electronics
- 10.8. Retail
- 10.8.1. Brick And Mortar
- 10.8.2. Ecommerce
- 11. Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service Market, by Region
- 11.1. Americas
- 11.1.1. North America
- 11.1.2. Latin America
- 11.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
- 11.2.1. Europe
- 11.2.2. Middle East
- 11.2.3. Africa
- 11.3. Asia-Pacific
- 12. Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service Market, by Group
- 12.1. ASEAN
- 12.2. GCC
- 12.3. European Union
- 12.4. BRICS
- 12.5. G7
- 12.6. NATO
- 13. Disaster-Recovery-as-a-Service Market, by Country
- 13.1. United States
- 13.2. Canada
- 13.3. Mexico
- 13.4. Brazil
- 13.5. United Kingdom
- 13.6. Germany
- 13.7. France
- 13.8. Russia
- 13.9. Italy
- 13.10. Spain
- 13.11. China
- 13.12. India
- 13.13. Japan
- 13.14. Australia
- 13.15. South Korea
- 14. Competitive Landscape
- 14.1. Market Share Analysis, 2024
- 14.2. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2024
- 14.3. Competitive Analysis
- 14.3.1. Acronis International GmbH
- 14.3.2. Amazon Web Services, Inc.
- 14.3.3. Cisco Systems, Inc.
- 14.3.4. Dell Technologies Inc.
- 14.3.5. Expedient LLC
- 14.3.6. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
- 14.3.7. IBM Corporation
- 14.3.8. InterVision Systems LLC
- 14.3.9. Kaseya company
- 14.3.10. Microsoft Corporation
- 14.3.11. Recovery Point Systems Inc.
- 14.3.12. Sungard Availability Services LP
- 14.3.13. TierPoint LLC
- 14.3.14. Veeam Software Group GmbH
- 14.3.15. VMware, Inc.
Pricing
Currency Rates
Questions or Comments?
Our team has the ability to search within reports to verify it suits your needs. We can also help maximize your budget by finding sections of reports you can purchase.
