We performed a comparison between Google Cloud Storage and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP 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."Google Cloud Storage's most valuable features are that it's easy to use and navigate, and it's not expensive."
"The best feature is ease of use."
"The most valuable features of Google Cloud Storage are the ease of use and I can share files with my colleagues."
"The solution is already stable and I have not encountered problems in this regard."
"We are mostly doing telephony and generic web services in the telephony."
"It is stable and scalable."
"The most valuable features are the ease and accessibility of information."
"I could store any type of file using the solution."
"The ability to see things going back and forth has been quite useful."
"So a lot of these licenses are at the rate that is required for capacity. So they're they're able to reduce the license consumption and also the consumption of the underlying cloud storage."
"Snapshots are one valuable feature within ONTAP, but CVO's appeal is that it acts just like the on-prem solution. It's the same OS, but in the cloud. We can continue to use ONTAP as we did on-premise."
"We are definitely in the process of reducing our footprint on our secondary data center and all those snapshots technically reduce tape backup. That's from the protection perspective, but as far as files, it's much easier to use and manage and it's faster, too."
"ONTAP is great for helping you migrate on-premise workflows to cloud environments."
"The most valuable features of this solution are SnapShot, FlexClone, and deduplication."
"Its features help us to have a backup of our volumes using the native technology of NetApp ONTAP. That way, we don't have to invest in other solutions for our backup requirement. Also, it helps us to replicate the data to another geographic location so that helps us to save on the costs of backup products."
"If you have a larger amount of data than normal in cloud, it is easy to provision and maintain. Waiting for the delivery of the controller, the configuration of enclosures, etc., all this stuff is eliminated compared to using on-premise."
"It could be made even more secure and allow for more storage."
"It would be helpful to offer more packages to increase the storage."
"The implementation is not as easy as Microsoft, and the process could be improved."
"The solution should offer more free storage."
"This solution could be improved by increasing integration with other tools, like Microsoft."
"They need more enhancements in the security features."
"I'd like the solution to integrate better with other clouds, including the Apple cloud."
"The user interface could be more intuitive."
"We have customers that are still using IBM mainframes and that very old SNA architecture from IBM. There are questions about how you interconnect the data on the mainframe side... But I don't know if it's worth it for NetApp to invest in developing products to include mainframes for a few customers."
"I rate the scalability a five out of ten."
"The DR has room for improvement. For example, we now have NetApp in Western Europe and we would like to back up the information to another region. It's impossible. We need to bring up an additional NetApp in that other region and create a Cloud Manager automation to copy the data... I would prefer it to be a more integrated solution like it was in the NetApp solution about a year ago. I would like to see something like AltaVault but in the cloud."
"NetApp CVO needs to have more exposure and mature further before it will have greater acceptance."
"We are getting a warning alert about not being able to connect to Cloud Manager when we log into it. The support has provided links, but this particular issue is not fixed yet."
"We want to be able to add more than six disks in aggregate, but there is a limit of the number of disks in aggregate. In GCP, they provide less by limiting the sixth disk in aggregate. In Azure, the same solution provides 12 disks in an aggregate versus GCP where it is just half that amount. They should bump up the disk in aggregate requirement so we don't have to migrate the aggregate from one to another when the capacities are full."
"Multipathing for iSCSI LUNs is difficult to deal with from the client-side and I'd love to see a single entry point that can be moved around within the cluster to simplify the client configuration."
"There is room for improvement in tier one support, especially with potential language barriers and communication challenges."
Google Cloud Storage is ranked 3rd in Cloud Storage with 66 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Storage with 60 reviews. Google Cloud Storage is rated 8.8, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Google Cloud Storage writes "Flexible, reliable, and beneficial for small sized companies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Google Cloud Storage is most compared with Amazon S3 Glacier, AT&T Cloud Storage, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Workspace and Wasabi, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Portworx Enterprise and Amazon EBS (Elastic Block Store). See our Google Cloud Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP report.
See our list of best Cloud Storage vendors and best Public Cloud Storage Services 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.
