No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Azure Data Lake Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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 Data Lake Storage
Ranking in Cloud Storage
8th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Cloud Storage
34th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (34th), Public Cloud Storage Services (26th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Cloud Storage category, the mindshare of Azure Data Lake Storage is 1.6%, up from 1.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS is 1.1%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Storage Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Azure Data Lake Storage1.6%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS1.1%
Other97.3%
Cloud Storage
 

Featured Reviews

Rama Subba Reddy Thavva - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution Architect at Mercedes-Benz AG
Unified data lake has supported daily terabyte workloads and delivers secure automotive analytics
I would rate Azure Data Lake Storage around a nine out of ten. To give Azure Data Lake Storage a ten out of ten, they need to optimize the cost. The cost factor is the only thing I would identify for all my use cases, as they are very well equipped in other areas. Even though the cost is reasonable, if they reduce it, we would benefit significantly. Additionally, there is no data lineage and no ontology tools available on Azure Data Lake Storage. I understand it is blob-based, but if they maintain some ontology tools or data cataloging and data lineage, that would be great. However, those features are currently covered under Databricks, so we are not much concerned.
reviewer2039379 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution Architect at a university with 10,001+ employees
Great migrations, useful integrations, and offers good data replication
The local libraries from NetApp to NetApp are good. This way, we don't have to put the middleman in between to do the transition or conversion. The NetApp Cloud Volume Services for AWS has been helping migrate workloads onto the cloud. We did migrate a couple of native applications into AWS using this, and it was helpful. In terms of the integration with AWS native services, I did not configure it by myself. There was another team who did it. That said, I presume they didn't run into any issues, which is why we are using it. While the solution did not help us reduce the amount of storage, it allowed us to have data replicated across on-premises and in the cloud, so that we have a backup in DR. While it did not reduce the footprint, it helped DR expansion. It increased redundancy. Since deploying the product, we have not been affected by ransomware or other external threats.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The tool's best feature is that it can store different types of data - structured, unstructured, and semi-structured—in one lake. We can use the required data for analytics and dashboard design."
"The hierarchical structure allows us to create multiple hierarchies inside, such as storage containers, directories, and subdirectories."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Data Lake Storage is the ability to partition data into various datasets using a directory hierarchy. This folder structure is key for any delivery. Currently, we're not doing much with the data in the tool, but when Databricks comes along, we'll convert it to Parquet format. It's a two-step process: raw data is moved to Parquet, which Databricks can manipulate easily."
"Storage within Azure Data Lake is cheaper, which is one of the reasons we moved to it."
"The tool is very safe to use. It is impossible to hack the product."
"I would recommend Azure Data Lake Storage because it is straightforward to set up and versatile for various projects, especially AI solutions requiring document storage."
"The tool's most valuable feature is security access policies."
"Microsoft is quite good when it comes to integration. They have multiple connectors available and different ingestion and integration processes available."
"The NetApp Cloud Volume Services for AWS has been helping migrate workloads onto the cloud. We did migrate a couple of native applications into AWS using this, and it was helpful."
 

Cons

"Improvement is needed in the migration process from Lakehouse to Enterprise Data Lake (EDL). Currently, migration is only one-way possible, and it would be beneficial if this aspect could be improved."
"The high price of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Azure Data Lake Storage does have a difference in price depending on the data type."
"If tools like Azure Data Lake Storage are enabled within the tool named Azure Storage Explorer, then it would be of tremendous help, but it can be really tricky."
"The scalability is limited. However, it's easy to set up."
"When you store your files manually, you can't ensure complete data integrity, which can impact data security."
"There are some gotchas with the pricing; you have to be careful. There's not really a way to throttle it either."
"Improvement is needed in the migration process from Lakehouse to Enterprise Data Lake (EDL)."
"We'd like the solution to be less expensive and offer lower latency."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is tricky because it depends on the solution you're building and the type of Data Lake storage you use—hot or cold."
"One of the most affordable products from the vendor"
"The tool is cheap, depending on the services and requirements you need."
"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten."
"It costs just a few dollars per terabyte per month."
"It's a pay-as-you-go model. Your charges are based on the amount of data you store."
"From one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the product price as five."
"I rate the product price as two or three, where one is high, and ten is low. The product's price is really high."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Storage solutions are best for your needs.
896,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
15%
University
14%
Marketing Services Firm
10%
Manufacturing Company
8%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise7
Large Enterprise13
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure Data Lake Storage?
Azure Data Lake Storage is very less priced because the difference when I compare on-premise to cloud is significant. On-premise, you need to have from day one the entire capacity, and you own that...
What needs improvement with Azure Data Lake Storage?
It definitely supports my needs performance-wise. The only challenge depends on what type of storage we are using for the data lake. Is it a hot tier or archive tier? Performance will depend on tha...
What is your primary use case for Azure Data Lake Storage?
My main use cases for Azure Data Lake Storage involve building these solutions, designing these solutions, and evaluating this solution. Once this solution is paid, HRD, LDR in place, I go on the e...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Cloud Volumes Service for AWS, NetApp CVS for AWS, CVS for AWS
 

Overview

Find out what your peers are saying about Dropbox, Google, CTERA and others in Cloud Storage. Updated: May 2026.
896,099 professionals have used our research since 2012.