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 very flexible."
"The solution is flexible and very user-friendly."
"Some of the most valuable features are how convenient and easy to use this solution is. It's very user-friendly and meets all my requirements."
"I find the accessibility from various devices to be the most valuable feature of Google Cloud Storage. I also like that it is integrated with Gmail and Google Groups."
"It is seamlessly integrated with your Android. There’s no fuss, no hassle."
"It's very practical and reliable."
"Google Cloud Storage performs well and it's easy to use."
"We are mostly doing telephony and generic web services in the telephony."
"This solution supports all file formats."
"The interface is very good."
"It is a very scalable solution. I rate the solution's scalability a nine out of ten."
"The immutable storage features are valuable."
"The initial setup is straightforward and takes approximately twenty minutes."
"Its most valuable features are speed and security."
"First of all, the solution is very secure. Secondly, the solution is very fast. It is reliable and available all the time."
"It was quick to synchronize back from Azure to the on-premise server."
"User management could be better. It's complicated process to delete users and maintain the structure of documents created by deleted users."
"It is hard to migrate to another product if we want to."
"There are inefficiencies with cache when the names are sequencing."
"They need to get some parts of the program more mature, like the admin management part as well as the monitoring part."
"Google Cloud Storage could be improved by increasing the drive capacity."
"In the next release, if improvements are made to the GPU instances for machine learning, for example, it would be helpful."
"The solution could always be more user-friendly."
"I would like to see this solution made faster, cheaper, and bigger."
"It's a bit complex to set up. Other than that, there is nothing to improve."
"The solution should support all the legacy storage systems."
"The upload speed has room for improvement."
"It's not very intuitive."
"It’s a challenge to find the right support person."
"The product’s pricing could be better."
"There is room for improvement in helping customers understand and integrate Azure File Storage into their operations."
"Microsoft Azure File Storage is not that easy to use."
Google Cloud Storage is ranked 4th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 66 reviews while Microsoft Azure File Storage is ranked 1st in Public Cloud Storage Services with 41 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.
