Where StackGuardian fits in a cloud DR plan, and where it does not

What does StackGuardian do?

Its home page describes an infrastructure-as-code management platform. It discovers unmanaged cloud resources on AWS, Azure and Google Cloud and converts them into version-controlled Terraform or OpenTofu. It runs continuous drift detection with audit reports and enforces policy guardrails written in OPA/Rego. Its tiers are published: Free $0, Standard $359 a month, Pro $1,459 a month and Enterprise by quote.

It does not describe a backup or cloud disaster recovery product.

Why does it come up in cloud DR shortlists?

Because many recovery plans start from code. The AWS whitepaper on recovery options recommends infrastructure as code for redeploying an environment in a recovery region, and the CISA #StopRansomware Guide recommends using IaC to deploy cloud resources and keeping the template files backed up offline. A rebuild from code only works for what is in code. Resources created by hand are the usual gap, and finding and codifying them is what StackGuardian does.

Cohesity's Cloud Rebuild illustrates the dependency: it uses validated IaC definitions as the source of truth and is stated for Terraform-provisioned environments. The more of an estate is in code, the more of it a tool like that can bring back.

Where does it stop?

• No capture of a point-in-time snapshot to return to, so no rollback after a bad change beyond what your version control holds.
• No failover, no orchestration of a rebuild and no failback.
• No data protection.
• No recovery targets, because there is no recovery.

Terraform state has its own limits too. HashiCorp's documentation for HCP Terraform warns that rolling back to a previous state version can leave resources orphaned or duplicated. Code and state are inputs to a recovery, not the recovery itself.

None of this is a criticism of what StackGuardian sets out to do. It describes an infrastructure-as-code management product, and it is not scored here because this site asks a recovery question.

Why is it not scored?

Since the 13 October 2026 update StackGuardian is listed with IaC management platforms rather than scored. Its features closest to recovery are drift detection with remediation on Pro and Enterprise and its published tiers. It publishes no recovery targets, and its sg-dr tool covers StackGuardian's own outages, not your cloud.

How does it compare with the other IaC tools?

Scalr sits close to StackGuardian: drift detection with a revert option and published per-run pricing, but no recovery product. HCP Terraform, Spacelift and env zero sit in the same group on the rankings page: their pages describe infrastructure-as-code management and drift detection but no backup or cloud disaster recovery product. None of them answers the recovery question this site scores, which is why the group is listed rather than ranked.

What should a team using it ask a recovery vendor?

Three questions connect the two layers. First, can the recovery tool read the Terraform or OpenTofu that StackGuardian produces, or does it keep its own record? Second, when drift is detected, does the recovery tool's last capture include the drifted setting or the intended one? Third, after a recovery, can the rebuilt environment be brought back under the same code and policies, so the next drift check starts clean? Answers to these decide whether the two tools work together or simply sit side by side.

When does it make sense?

When your first problem is that large parts of the estate are not in code and nobody knows what has drifted. Codify and watch first, then choose a recovery tool for the rebuild itself. If you choose a recovery tool that captures the live environment directly, such as Firefly, Arpio or Commvault Cloud Rewind, check how much of StackGuardian's work it already covers before buying both.