We performed a comparison between Azure NetApp Files and Google Drive Enterprise based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable features of the solution is replication to another region and the performance. The solution is stable. The solution is scalable. The initial setup is straightforward."
"Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."
"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."
"Its security and ease of use are most valuable."
"Since we have NetApp's internally, we use the SnapMirror predominantly for this process in the cloud which is beneficial."
"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."
"For me, the most valuable feature is basically saving and sharing documents with other people outside, having something to be co-shared. When documents are large in size, it is easier to send them via email."
"The solution is easy to use, has good performance, and is secure."
"The solution is very easy to scale."
"Some of the most useful features of Google Drive Enterprise is the ability to store my data and share it."
"The program is very stable."
"Offers good storage."
"The most valuable features of Google Drive Enterprise are the secure file-sharing service. It is necessary to communicate with people, and the safe large file transfer is good. It's very useful and critical for us to communicate with each other nowadays. They integrate well with other Google solutions, such as Google Documents and Google Spreadsheet."
"I like that it's easy to use. I'm satisfied with the speed, stability, and availability."
"The deployment process is somewhat complex compared to other storage solutions."
"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."
"I have a hunch that storage could be now the most expensive portion of our monthly bill. So I can imagine that, not this year, but next year we will be talking about looking deeper into ways how we can optimize the cost."
"The pricing definitely needs to be improved."
"We would like to have backup functionality built-in so that we don't run into the issue where the replication process makes a copy of the corrupted data."
"We would like to see more paired regions for the replication."
"I would like to see multi-zone redundancy so that I don't have to worry about it. I just back up my data to that one SMB share and I know that it's replicated to a different region."
"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."
"I have sometimes observed that when the data is very huge or there are so many rules, Google Sheets documents get stuck while uploading. It keeps on loading the document and gives an error. There should be an improvement in this aspect. It should be quick. Currently, we have to wait for a long time."
"The product lacks customization."
"The desktop app could be improved, especially how it functions in the Windows environment."
"The free tier of storage is limited."
"The price of additional storage could be reduced. I have an annual subscription and I'm only using 150GB because of the price."
"A separate interface to give users a summary of how they've shared items on the drive would be useful. You can end up having a lot of stuff and the sheer amount can end up making users feel a little bit lost in terms of knowing who they've actually shared items with."
"Google Drive Enterprise could improve the integrations. We do not use the tool very much for our corporate desktops. Additionally, Google collects a lot of personal data from the customers which is not very good and this is one of the reasons we do not use it for our corporation."
"The solution is relatively new and takes some time to get used to."
Running performance-intensive and latency-sensitive file workloads in the cloud can be hard. Use Azure NetApp Files to migrate and run complex, file-based applications and simplify storage management.
Azure NetApp Files is ranked 7th in Cloud Storage with 12 reviews while Google Drive Enterprise is ranked 6th in Cloud Storage with 52 reviews. Azure NetApp Files is rated 8.4, while Google Drive Enterprise is rated 8.4. 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 Google Drive Enterprise writes "Easy to set up with simple file access and very 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 Google Drive Enterprise is most compared with Google Workspace, Citrix ShareFile, Google Cloud Storage, Dropbox and Zoolz Intelligent Cloud. See our Azure NetApp Files vs. Google Drive Enterprise report.
See our list of best Cloud Storage vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Storage 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.