We performed a comparison between Azure NetApp Files and CloudSphere based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Migration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's elastic, so it scales with our demands. We can start small, then with the addition of customer loads, we can expand on-the-fly without the need to reprovision something."
"You can change it non-disruptively. You can increase the size and decrease the size online, which is a huge benefit compared to Azure disks. It just works seamlessly. You don't need to stop the instances."
"Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."
"This solution definitely makes us more efficient in being able to provide storage quickly to our customers in the Azure Cloud."
"The critical features of this solution are SnapMirror for replication, data protection, and SnapLock."
"It has saved a lot of time. Because in the older, conventional hardware system, they need to raise a ticket to go to storage engineering, then storage engineering would increased the size. Now, it's dynamic. You don't have to do anything. This improved the time by more than 50 percent."
"Azure NetApp Files has been stable."
"One aspect of Azure NetApp Files that I truly appreciate is its remarkable performance capabilities."
"We do not need to install any appliances or any agents."
"For the customers I work with, it provides flexibility as far as storage is concerned, so it's security and access."
"Provides multiple kinds of services for managing the clouds of multiple customers."
"When I started using CloudSphere, it wasn't mature, and it had multiple issues. For example, my team experienced server issues while using the solution, but recently, I noticed how much CloudSphere has improved. There used to be some latency issues with CloudSphere. It even gave error messages in the past when you select an option such as "the web server is not responding", but it has improved a lot, and now I don't get any errors from CloudSphere. What I like best about CloudSphere is that it has a lot of beneficial features, and it has a single pane for managing multi-cloud environments, which I find very helpful, and it's the main benefit you can get from CloudSphere."
"The product is helpful for the management, optimization, and utilization of resources."
"We were looking for a clustered solution that has over-complicated things because we had it in AWS, which is Amazon. There was a solution for clustered NetApp. That meant there would be two NetApps that were not clustered because there was no solution for a cluster. We would like there to be an HA cluster solution."
"The pricing definitely needs to be improved."
"We would like to see more paired regions for the replication."
"The main hurdle in promoting this solution is the price. Its price definitely requires an improvement. It is more expensive than other options, so customers go for a cheaper option."
"Azure NetApp Files could improve by being more diverse to integrate better with other solutions, such as Splunk and the on-premise version. There are some use cases that are not covered natively by Azure. It is not the best solution because it is not external from the cloud which for me is the best type of solution."
"This solution would be improved with more innovation."
"Reserved Instances for Azure NetApp Files would improve more use cases, making them more valuable in Azure as the cost would be reduced."
"We would like for the files which are coming in that we can version them. So, if a file is accidentally deleted, there should have a recycle bin option where we can go back, and at least once, clean it up."
"The solution must have a single management console for the resources and VMs."
"When we start the scanning of, for example, 500 servers, it will not handle the scan. We need to differentiate the jobs - for example, one job for 100 servers, a second job for another 100 servers, et cetera."
"There are quite a number of services that can't be deployed using CloudSphere."
"The main issue I experienced from CloudSphere was recently resolved, but an area for improvement in the solution is that it lacks the functionality of migrating resources from one public cloud to another. If CloudSphere could provide that functionality, that would be very beneficial to users and companies."
"The next feature I would like to have full disclosure of what's being done with the data."
Azure NetApp Files is ranked 3rd in Cloud Migration with 12 reviews while CloudSphere is ranked 14th in Cloud Migration with 5 reviews. Azure NetApp Files is rated 8.4, while CloudSphere is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure NetApp Files writes "We can expand our storage on-the-fly without the need to reprovision". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CloudSphere writes "Great discovery, good support, and generally reliable". Azure NetApp Files is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Nasuni, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) and Google Cloud Storage, whereas CloudSphere is most compared with SkyKick Cloud Manager, Microsoft Azure and Aptum. See our Azure NetApp Files vs. CloudSphere report.
See our list of best Cloud Migration vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Migration 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.
