We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure File Storage and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Public Cloud Storage Services solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Its most valuable features are speed and security."
"My client had zero data loss while using the solution for backups and file security."
"I like that Microsoft Azure File Storage works fine and is quick to deploy. It's also easy to connect to it, particularly when connecting it with my on-premise file servers."
"What I like about Microsoft Azure File Storage is its convenience for customers, cost-effectiveness, and high availability."
"General user familiarity with Office 365 products make adopting this solution easy to adopt in production."
"The storage in this solution is excellent."
"It helps us with geo-redundancy."
"It is a good service for file storage."
"The ability to do a straight SnapMirror from our on-prem to the cloud with no other data transitions is excellent."
"It offers ease of use and a comprehensive suite of applications, including features like SnapMirror, SnapVault, and unified snapshot management, all bundled into a single product."
"It is much easier to control data since we can run queries across all our platforms with just one solution. Not only that, we can also monitor all the platforms with Active IQ, where we can see all the alerts, messages, and space consumption through a single application. This is regardless if the data is on-prem or AWS. It is much more efficient."
"The ease of use in terms of how the product works is valuable. We are able to work with it and deploy the storage that we need."
"The fast recovery time objective with the ability to bring the environment back to production in case something happens."
"ONTAP's snapshot copies and thin clones in terms of operational recovery are pretty useful in recovering your data from a time in a snapshot. That's pretty useful for when you have an event where a disaster struck and then you need to recover all your data. It's pretty helpful and pretty fast in those terms."
"Unified Manager, System Manager, and Cloud Manager are all GUI-based. It's easy for somebody who has not been exposed to this for years to pick it up and work with it."
"One of the features our customers like is that it can be used from one cloud provider to another. They can use it from Azure to AWS or vice versa. That way, they don't need to use the same provider for backups. If something goes wrong on the primary site, having the same data in another cloud service provider is important."
"Importing and exporting data needs to have a bit more documentation."
"Considering the enterprise licensing required for the solution, the cost of the solution is an area where the product needs improvement."
"The solution should support all the legacy storage systems."
"The product’s pricing could be better."
"They should make the solution more user-friendly."
"It’s a challenge to find the right support person."
"Maybe Microsoft can make it more economical because it is a costly affair."
"The provider needs to collect more information about the products."
"The solution is not stable when using single nodes. This is a problem. NetApp should work on this solution to make it more stable with HA nodes and resolve this issue."
"I would like to see more aggressive management of the aggregate space. On the Cloud Volumes ONTAP that we use for offsite backup copies, most of the data sits in S3. There are also the EBS volumes on the Cloud Volumes ONTAP itself. Sometimes what happens is that the aggregate size just stays the same. If it allocates 8 terabytes initially, it just stays at 8 terabytes for a long time, even though we're only using 20 percent of that 8 terabytes. NetApp could undersize that more aggressively."
"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."
"The product is more restricted with underlying cloud."
"Scale-up and scale-out could be improved. It would be interesting to have multiple HA pairs on one cluster, for example, or to increase the single instances more, from a performance perspective. It would be good to get more performance out of a single HA pair."
"NetApp CVO needs to have more exposure and mature further before it will have greater acceptance."
"We would like to have support for high availability in multi-regions."
"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."
Microsoft Azure File Storage is ranked 1st in Public Cloud Storage Services with 40 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 6th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 60 reviews. Microsoft Azure File Storage is rated 8.2, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure File Storage writes "Various storage options available, high availability, and quick deployment". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Microsoft Azure File Storage is most compared with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Azure NetApp Files, Wasabi, Amazon S3 and Amazon S3 Glacier, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Cloud Storage and Portworx Enterprise. See our Microsoft Azure File Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP 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.
