Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM SoftLayer vs Microsoft Azure File Storage comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 1, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM SoftLayer
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
22nd
Average Rating
8.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Microsoft Azure File Storage
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
50
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Public Cloud Storage Services category, the mindshare of IBM SoftLayer is 0.5%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Microsoft Azure File Storage is 9.8%, down from 13.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Public Cloud Storage Services
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1032702 - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable with excellent speed and agility
The most valuable aspect of the solution is simply to have the ability to host in a cloud form and out of the data center - the IBM big iron solution. It's the speed and the agility that really sell SoftLayer. The ELT versus ETL extract, transform and load versus extract, load, and then transform, the ELT method is what really sells SoftLayer. The ability to extract act from your current location, load into your future location, with limited change, and then be able to take the transfer actions slowly and methodically after you're in your new location is the part that really makes this awesome. The stability and scalability are quite good.
PrashanthR - PeerSpot reviewer
Seamlessly streamlines document processing with advanced file storage and OCR integration
We need to store data over there. We process documents through Kofax Time is a major benefit, as well as ease of processing. With configuration, it happens quite easily, and we can finish tasks early. File storage is complemented by OCR with Azure Cognitive Service. This enhances the processing…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"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."
"It's a scalable solution."
"It was easy to set up."
"The interface is very good."
"File storage is complemented by OCR with Azure Cognitive Service."
"The most valuable aspect of Azure File Storage is that all the features are available in one place."
"The tool offers a secure way to access storage. You can also easily share the files securely across Azure."
"It is very easy to use SSTP and some traditional code to move the data into a database because we can easily use the permissions and we don't have any integration or conversion issues."
"Very user-friendly and intuitive."
 

Cons

"The interface is hard to use for us. It should be simplified."
"For us, the versioning was an issue."
"There is a limitation on the storage capacity, like four terabytes. It could be improved to accommodate more data."
"Microsoft Azure File Storage is not that easy to use."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"It would be helpful if we could remove data that we don't frequently access to reduce the cost of the storage."
"There is room for improvement in helping customers understand and integrate Azure File Storage into their operations."
"I have had issues migrating my data to another subscription."
"It would be good if they added some features that make the solution easier to access for everyone."
"The integration of the site storage with SQL was not completely seamless."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"Microsoft Azure File Storage has a reasonable price."
"For one terabyte of data, we are spending about 150 Euro every month."
"We pay for both yearly and monthly licenses. The yearly one is cheaper than the monthly one."
"I give the pricing of the solution a seven out of ten."
"The price is comparable to other competitive solutions."
"Microsoft Azure File Storage is expensive."
"There are fewer hidden costs involved compared to other solutions, and when our customer is already a Microsoft partner, they typically have access to more affordable fees."
"The price of Microsoft Azure File Storage is expensive, we do not know exactly how the price is calculated."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Public Cloud Storage Services solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Which file storage system is better - Amazon EFS (elastic file storage) or Azure File Storage?
Amazon EFS is easy to set up: you can use the AWS management console, API, or command-line. Amazon EFS can grow to petabytes and deliver consistent low latencies and high levels of throughput. This...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure File Storage?
The pricing for Microsoft Azure File Storage is five out of ten, not so expensive and not so low.
 

Also Known As

CloudLayer
MS Azure File Storage
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Whogohost Ltd., Skypicker, Infinity Computers and Communications Company, Grace Co. Ltd., Keyword, Uvionics Tech, Tennis Australia, immixGroup, Salesbox, Cxense ASA, Avnet Inc., Komsomolskaya Pravda, Seekr
Talon, Camden
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM SoftLayer vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.