We performed a comparison between Azure NetApp Files and IBM SoftLayer based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, Amazon, Google and others in Public Cloud Storage Services."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."
"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."
"This solution definitely makes us more efficient in being able to provide storage quickly to our customers in the Azure Cloud."
"Since we have NetApp's internally, we use the SnapMirror predominantly for this process in the cloud which is beneficial."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its flexibility."
"Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."
"Azure NetApp Files has been stable."
"The stability is the solution's most valuable aspect for our organization."
"The ELT versus ETL extract, transform and load versus extract, load, and then transform, the ELT method is what really sells SoftLayer."
"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."
"This solution would be improved with more innovation."
"The deployment process is somewhat complex compared to other storage solutions."
"Reserved Instances for Azure NetApp Files would improve more use cases, making them more valuable in Azure as the cost would be reduced."
"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."
"The pricing definitely needs to be improved."
"We would like to see more paired regions for the replication."
"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 interface is hard to use for us. It should be simplified."
"For us, the versioning was an issue."
Earn 20 points
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 12th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 12 reviews while IBM SoftLayer is ranked 22nd in Public Cloud Storage Services. Azure NetApp Files is rated 8.4, while IBM SoftLayer is rated 8.6. 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 IBM SoftLayer writes "Stable with excellent speed and agility". 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 IBM SoftLayer is most compared with Amazon AWS.
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.