데이터 재해 복구 시장 : 컴포넌트별, 도입 모델별, 조직 규모별, 최종사용자 산업별 - 세계 예측(2026-2032년)

The Data Disaster Recovery Market was valued at USD 192.47 million in 2025 and is projected to grow to USD 211.17 million in 2026, with a CAGR of 8.85%, reaching USD 348.63 million by 2032.

A concise overview of modern data continuity pressures, governance shifts, and why recovery strategy now demands cross-functional business alignment

Organizations today confront a vastly more complex data continuity environment than in prior decades. Dispersed cloud-native applications, remote workforce patterns, and the proliferation of mission-critical data across hybrid infrastructures have expanded both the attack surface and the operational dependencies that must be preserved during incidents. As a result, data disaster recovery has evolved from a narrowly technical discipline into a cross-functional business capability that ties directly to revenue continuity, regulatory compliance, and customer trust.

Transitioning from legacy backup routines to modern recovery architectures requires not only new tools but also clarified governance, updated service level objectives, and collaboration between IT, security, legal, and business units. The move to cloud-based solutions and services simplifies certain operational burdens while introducing questions about recovery orchestration, vendor lock-in, and shared responsibility models. Consequently, leaders must reconcile technical feasibility with contract terms and data locality constraints.

This introduction outlines the operating realities driving current investment and strategy debates. It underscores why recovery objectives, threat preparedness, and supply chain resilience are now central to board-level discussions and why timely decisions on architectures and partnerships are critical to maintaining operational continuity under pressure.

How cloud transformation, cyber extortion trends, automation, and regulatory constraints are reshaping recovery architectures and strategic vendor partnerships

The landscape of data disaster recovery is shifting along several transformative axes that are redefining how organizations architect resilience. First, cloud-native and containerized workloads have made recovery planning both more granular and more distributed; recovery no longer centers solely on a datacenter failover but on application-level orchestration across multiple environments. In tandem, the rise of ransomware and other targeted extortion tactics has forced teams to prioritize rapid, immutable recovery pathways alongside enhanced detection and isolation capabilities.

Second, automation and policy-driven orchestration have moved from optional efficiencies to indispensable controls. As a result, organizations are increasingly adopting recovery playbooks that can be executed automatically, reducing human error and accelerating mean-time-to-recover. Third, regulatory expectations and cross-border data governance have introduced new constraints on where and how recovery copies may be stored and restored, prompting more nuanced decisions around data residency and encryption-in-transit and at-rest.

Finally, evolving enterprise buying behaviors and consumption models are shifting responsibility into managed services and recovery-as-a-service offerings, where contractual service level commitments and supplier transparency become decisive. Together, these shifts demand that technology leaders evaluate resilience not as a single project but as a continuous capability that requires ongoing validation, testing, and alignment with enterprise risk appetite.

Practical implications of recent tariff changes on procurement, supply resilience, and strategic choices between on-premises and cloud recovery options

Tariff adjustments and trade policy updates in 2025 have introduced new operational considerations for organizations that rely on cross-border supply chains and multinational vendor relationships for their data protection ecosystems. Changes to duties on hardware components and storage appliances influence procurement timelines and total cost of ownership for on-premises recovery infrastructures, while shifts in import regulation can ripple into vendor delivery schedules for critical replacement parts.

Beyond hardware, tariff-driven price impacts can alter the economics of hybrid deployments versus cloud-first strategies. As a consequence, procurement teams and technology leaders are revisiting their sourcing strategies to mitigate exposure to supply-side shocks and to reduce the likelihood of single-supplier dependencies. Moreover, heightened scrutiny of inbound technology flows in certain jurisdictions has prompted renewed attention to supplier audits, contractual clauses that cover compliance with trade regulations, and redundancy planning across geographic lines.

In response, recovery planners are increasingly integrating procurement intelligence into continuity plans, explicitly accounting for lead times and alternative sourcing pathways. This realignment strengthens operational resilience by ensuring that recovery appliances, licensed software, and managed-service relationships remain dependable even as tariff landscapes or trade controls fluctuate.

Targeted segmentation insights that explain how component choices, deployment models, organization size, and industry verticals reshape recovery priorities and investments

An effective segmentation lens clarifies where resilience investments deliver the greatest business value and helps leaders prioritize architecture and service choices. Based on component, market study separates Services and Solutions. The Services dimension distinguishes offerings such as Consulting And Support and Managed Services, which address governance, testing, and outsourced orchestration needs. The Solutions dimension further divides into Cloud Based, Hybrid, and On Premises approaches, reflecting differing operational trade-offs between agility, control, and data locality.

Complementing that, based on deployment model, the analysis differentiates Cloud, Hybrid, and On Premises options, each carrying distinct implications for recovery time objectives, contractual responsibility, and technical complexity. In addition, based on organization size, outcomes diverge between Large Enterprises and Small And Medium Enterprises, with larger organizations typically maintaining more complex multi-site recovery estates and smaller organizations often favoring managed services and simplified orchestration to reduce internal operational burden.

Finally, based on end user industry, distinctions emerge across verticals such as BFSI, Government, Healthcare, IT And Telecom, and Retail, where regulatory regimes, data criticality, and transaction volumes shape recovery priorities. Integrating these segmentation dimensions enables practitioners to tailor resilience programs to the combination of component choices, deployment models, organizational scale, and industry-specific constraints, thereby increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of recovery investments.

How regional regulatory regimes, infrastructure availability, and supplier ecosystems create differentiated recovery imperatives across global markets

Regional dynamics materially influence how organizations plan and operationalize data disaster recovery, and an awareness of geographic risk vectors informs both architectural decisions and vendor selection. In the Americas, regulatory maturity and the scale of enterprise IT footprints often encourage early adoption of advanced orchestration tools and multi-cloud failover arrangements, while procurement sensitivity to supply chain constraints remains a material consideration for on-premises deployments.

In Europe, Middle East & Africa, data protection and cross-border data transfer rules introduce nuanced residency and compliance demands that affect where recovery copies can be retained and how service providers must demonstrate controls. Additionally, varying levels of market maturity across the region drive a mixed adoption pattern where cloud and hybrid models coexist with localized on-premises requirements. Across Asia-Pacific, rapid digital adoption, diverse regulatory regimes, and concentrated manufacturing hubs underscore the importance of contingency planning for both cloud service continuity and hardware availability, with many organizations balancing agility with strong local redundancy strategies.

Taken together, these regional variations make it essential for resilience programs to incorporate geography-specific compliance, infrastructure availability, and supplier diversity measures. Consequently, global portfolios benefit from harmonized policies that nonetheless allow localized adaptations to address regional legal and operational realities.

Vendor and partnership dynamics that prioritize orchestration, cloud-native integration, and outcome-based managed services in modern recovery portfolios

Vendor dynamics in the data disaster recovery space increasingly center on orchestration capabilities, cloud-native integration, and transparent service commitments. Leading solution providers are investing in automation layers that abstract complex recovery workflows and link detection, isolation, and restore processes into cohesive playbooks. Meanwhile, service providers are differentiating through outcome-oriented agreements and expanded managed offerings that combine advisory, testing, and hands-on execution.

Partnerships across cloud platform vendors, software suppliers, and systems integrators play a growing role in shaping end-to-end resilience propositions. These alliances facilitate deeper native integration with public cloud primitives, enable more efficient data movement across fabrics, and support hybrid recovery patterns that span on-premises and cloud resources. Additionally, acquisition activity and strategic investments are consolidating complementary capabilities such as immutable backup storage, rapid snapshot orchestration, and forensic-ready retention features.

For enterprise buyers, the critical considerations are interoperability, open recovery APIs, and clearly defined shared responsibility boundaries. As a result, procurement and architecture teams should prioritize vendors that demonstrate strong compliance controls, verifiable recovery performance through frequent testing, and a transparent roadmap for integrating emerging technologies like infrastructure-as-code and policy-driven recovery orchestration.

Concrete governance, automation, supplier diversification, and validation steps that leaders should implement now to materially improve recovery readiness

Leaders can take several actionable steps to strengthen resilience and ensure recovery plans remain effective under evolving threats and regulatory demands. First, embed recovery objectives and testing cadence into enterprise risk governance, ensuring that business owners own the priorities for recovery time and data criticality, and that tabletop and live recovery exercises are scheduled and documented. This governance step promotes accountability and surfaces hidden dependencies across application and infrastructure teams.

Second, favor recovery architectures that include policy-driven automation and immutable recovery copies to reduce reliance on manual intervention during incidents. Transitioning to automation does not eliminate the need for human oversight, but it substantially reduces error-prone steps and shortens time to restoration. Third, diversify supplier strategies by combining native cloud resilience features with third-party orchestration and by maintaining cross-regional redundancy to mitigate supply chain or tariff-induced disruptions.

Fourth, invest in continuous validation and telemetry so that recovery readiness is measured by successful tests rather than by plan existence alone. Finally, align contractual SLAs with operational testing results and require vendors to provide demonstrable recovery workflows and transparent audit trails. Implementing these recommendations will strengthen operational readiness and allow organizations to respond more predictably when disruptions occur.

A mixed-methods research approach combining practitioner interviews, secondary documentation analysis, and scenario validation to ensure practical and evidence-based insights

A rigorous research methodology underpins the insights presented, combining structured primary engagements with secondary source synthesis and validation exercises. Primary inputs include interviews with senior IT, security, and continuity practitioners, direct discussions with infrastructure and service providers, and scenario-based tabletop reviews that illuminate decision trade-offs during real-world incident simulations. These engagements surface operational practices, procurement sensitivities, and vendor performance considerations that inform practical recommendations.

Secondary research draws on publicly available regulatory guidance, vendor technical documentation, and industry technical standards to corroborate observed patterns and to clarify compliance implications. In addition, comparative analysis across deployment models and industry verticals identifies recurring control mechanisms and failure modes. Finally, findings undergo internal validation through cross-functional expert review and scenario testing to ensure that conclusions reflect both technical feasibility and organizational realities.

This mixed-methods approach ensures that the analysis captures emerging trends, operational constraints, and pragmatic mitigation strategies while maintaining transparency about assumptions and evidence sources.

A concluding synthesis that frames modern recovery as a strategic, measurable discipline linking automation, governance, and supplier resilience to business continuity outcomes

The confluence of cloud adoption, cyber extortion threats, tariff shifts, and increasingly prescriptive regulatory frameworks has moved data disaster recovery from an operational backstop into a strategic capability. Organizations that treat recovery as an ongoing, measurable discipline-integrating automation, continuous validation, and cross-functional governance-create a durable advantage by reducing downtime, preserving customer confidence, and simplifying regulatory compliance.

Moving forward, resilience programs must balance the trade-offs between control and agility, combining cloud-native features with on-premises safeguards where necessary and employing managed services to fill capability gaps. Procurement and architecture teams should incorporate supply chain visibility and tariff-aware sourcing into continuity planning, thereby reducing vulnerability to external shocks. Ultimately, the most resilient organizations will be those that align recovery priorities with business outcomes, test assumptions frequently, and maintain diversified supplier relationships to sustain continuity under diverse stressors.

Table of Contents

1. Preface

• 1.1. Objectives of the Study
• 1.2. Market Definition
• 1.3. Market Segmentation & Coverage
• 1.4. Years Considered for the Study
• 1.5. Currency Considered for the Study
• 1.6. Language Considered for the Study
• 1.7. Key Stakeholders

2. Research Methodology

• 2.1. Introduction
• 2.2. Research Design
  • 2.2.1. Primary Research
  • 2.2.2. Secondary Research
• 2.3. Research Framework
  • 2.3.1. Qualitative Analysis
  • 2.3.2. Quantitative Analysis
• 2.4. Market Size Estimation
  • 2.4.1. Top-Down Approach
  • 2.4.2. Bottom-Up Approach
• 2.5. Data Triangulation
• 2.6. Research Outcomes
• 2.7. Research Assumptions
• 2.8. Research Limitations

3. Executive Summary

• 3.1. Introduction
• 3.2. CXO Perspective
• 3.3. Market Size & Growth Trends
• 3.4. Market Share Analysis, 2025
• 3.5. FPNV Positioning Matrix, 2025
• 3.6. New Revenue Opportunities
• 3.7. Next-Generation Business Models
• 3.8. Industry Roadmap

4. Market Overview

• 4.1. Introduction
• 4.2. Industry Ecosystem & Value Chain Analysis
  • 4.2.1. Supply-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.2. Demand-Side Analysis
  • 4.2.3. Stakeholder Analysis
• 4.3. Porter's Five Forces Analysis
• 4.4. PESTLE Analysis
• 4.5. Market Outlook
  • 4.5.1. Near-Term Market Outlook (0-2 Years)
  • 4.5.2. Medium-Term Market Outlook (3-5 Years)
  • 4.5.3. Long-Term Market Outlook (5-10 Years)
• 4.6. Go-to-Market Strategy

5. Market Insights

• 5.1. Consumer Insights & End-User Perspective
• 5.2. Consumer Experience Benchmarking
• 5.3. Opportunity Mapping
• 5.4. Distribution Channel Analysis
• 5.5. Pricing Trend Analysis
• 5.6. Regulatory Compliance & Standards Framework
• 5.7. ESG & Sustainability Analysis
• 5.8. Disruption & Risk Scenarios
• 5.9. Return on Investment & Cost-Benefit Analysis

6. Cumulative Impact of United States Tariffs 2025

7. Cumulative Impact of Artificial Intelligence 2025

8. Data Disaster Recovery Market, by Component

• 8.1. Services
  • 8.1.1. Consulting And Support
  • 8.1.2. Managed Services
• 8.2. Solutions
  • 8.2.1. Cloud Based
  • 8.2.2. Hybrid
  • 8.2.3. On Premises

9. Data Disaster Recovery Market, by Deployment Model

• 9.1. Cloud
• 9.2. Hybrid
• 9.3. On Premises

10. Data Disaster Recovery Market, by Organization Size

• 10.1. Large Enterprises
• 10.2. Small And Medium Enterprises

11. Data Disaster Recovery Market, by End User Industry

• 11.1. BFSI
• 11.2. Government
• 11.3. Healthcare
• 11.4. IT And Telecom
• 11.5. Retail

12. Data Disaster Recovery Market, by Region

• 12.1. Americas
  • 12.1.1. North America
  • 12.1.2. Latin America
• 12.2. Europe, Middle East & Africa
  • 12.2.1. Europe
  • 12.2.2. Middle East
  • 12.2.3. Africa
• 12.3. Asia-Pacific

13. Data Disaster Recovery Market, by Group

• 13.1. ASEAN
• 13.2. GCC
• 13.3. European Union
• 13.4. BRICS
• 13.5. G7
• 13.6. NATO

14. Data Disaster Recovery Market, by Country

• 14.1. United States
• 14.2. Canada
• 14.3. Mexico
• 14.4. Brazil
• 14.5. United Kingdom
• 14.6. Germany
• 14.7. France
• 14.8. Russia
• 14.9. Italy
• 14.10. Spain
• 14.11. China
• 14.12. India
• 14.13. Japan
• 14.14. Australia
• 14.15. South Korea

15. United States Data Disaster Recovery Market

16. China Data Disaster Recovery Market

17. Competitive Landscape

• 17.1. Market Concentration Analysis, 2025
  • 17.1.1. Concentration Ratio (CR)
  • 17.1.2. Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI)
• 17.2. Recent Developments & Impact Analysis, 2025
• 17.3. Product Portfolio Analysis, 2025
• 17.4. Benchmarking Analysis, 2025
• 17.5. Acronis International GmbH
• 17.6. Amazon Web Services, Inc.
• 17.7. Broadcom Inc.
• 17.8. Capgemini SE
• 17.9. Cisco Systems, Inc.
• 17.10. Cohesity, Inc.
• 17.11. Commvault Systems, Inc.
• 17.12. Dell Technologies Inc.
• 17.13. Fujitsu Limited
• 17.14. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company
• 17.15. Hitachi Vantara LLC
• 17.16. Infosys Limited
• 17.17. International Business Machines Corporation
• 17.18. Iron Mountain Incorporated
• 17.19. Microsoft Corporation
• 17.20. NetApp, Inc.
• 17.21. NTT DATA Group Corporation
• 17.22. Oracle Corporation
• 17.23. Rubrik, Inc.
• 17.24. Tata Consultancy Services Limited
• 17.25. Veeam Software AG
• 17.26. Veritas Technologies LLC
• 17.27. Wipro Limited
• 17.28. Zerto Ltd.