We performed a comparison between Google Cloud and Oracle Cloud Platform based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Google Cloud slightly nudges ahead of Oracle Cloud Platform in this comparison. Google Cloud is very flexible, user friendly, and widely acknowledged. Users feel Oracle Cloud Platform is lacking some basic features and currently offers a very small portfolio.
"The solution is stable and has good performance."
"Google Cloud Storage includes Docs, calendar, Gmail, Google Drive, and Google Meet."
"The solution is already stable and I have not encountered problems in this regard."
"The most valuable feature of Google Cloud Storage is its ease of use. It fits well with our business use."
"Google Cloud Storage is fast, and it's scalable."
"The most valuable features are Pub/Sub, Data Explorer, BigQuery, and Data Transfer."
"From a stability standpoint, the solution is excellent. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"You do not need to install anything."
"The most valuable aspect of Azure File Storage is that all the features are available in one place."
"Very user-friendly and intuitive."
"The storage in this solution is excellent."
"The profile management option is another valuable feature that allows us to manage the profiles and secure them."
"It is very easy to use SSTP and some traditional code to move the data into a database because we can easily use the permissions and we don't have any integration or conversion issues."
"We have not explored the desktop performance analysis of the file storage, but the user interface, API, and the response that we receive over the file storage are very good. We have a lot of customers that connect to the client-side, click the images, and upload them. The beauty of the solution is that we can mount the file storage into a critical server as well as an external drive. The speed that we receive with the images is pretty good."
"I like that Microsoft Azure File Storage works fine and is quick to deploy. It's also easy to connect to it, particularly when connecting it with my on-premise file servers."
"My client had zero data loss while using the solution for backups and file security."
"While the solution seems to be secure, I worry that, with the cloud, there is a chance of hacking. It would be ideal if they could be more transparent about the processes they go through to keep our data secure in the cloud and on their systems."
"When compared to one of its competitors, Google Cloud Storage does not have or offer a lot of services to its users. So, this is one of the downsides of the solution."
"Google Cloud Storage could improve the integrations in a way Microsoft Azure is going about it. For Data Lake integrations, Microsoft Azure has a bunch of native pipelines available. All Google needs to do is add the same set or maybe even improve on the sets that they have. All the analytics, including the Data Lake, would then be able to sit in Google Cloud Storage."
"My use case of this solution is fairly minimal. However, I am concerned about privacy on a cloud platform. Many people are not migrating to a cloud service because they are still concerned about putting data in cloud-based storage."
"The solution is good, however, it would benefit from increased storage without the additional cost."
"Google Cloud Storage can improve by having better integration and migration tools."
"The product's user interface is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The tool should increase its storage."
"I have had issues migrating my data to another subscription."
"The way retention policies are applied could be more optimized."
"There is room for improvement in helping customers understand and integrate Azure File Storage into their operations."
"The solution should support all the legacy storage systems."
"The product must provide better security functions."
"Maybe Microsoft can make it more economical because it is a costly affair."
"The integration of the site storage with SQL was not completely seamless."
"It would be helpful if we could remove data that we don't frequently access to reduce the cost of the storage."
Google Cloud Storage is ranked 4th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 66 reviews while Microsoft Azure File Storage is ranked 3rd in Public Cloud Storage Services with 44 reviews. Google Cloud Storage is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Azure File Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Google Cloud Storage writes "Flexible, reliable, and beneficial for small sized companies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure File Storage writes "Various storage options available, high availability, and quick deployment". Google Cloud Storage is most compared with Amazon S3 Glacier, AT&T Cloud Storage, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Workspace and Amazon S3, whereas Microsoft Azure File Storage is most compared with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Azure NetApp Files, Wasabi, Amazon S3 and Oracle Database Backup Service. See our Google Cloud Storage vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage report.
See our list of best Public Cloud Storage Services vendors.
We monitor all Public Cloud Storage Services reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
