No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Microsoft Azure File Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Microsoft Azure File Storage
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
5th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
53
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
26th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (41st), Cloud Storage (33rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the Public Cloud Storage Services category, the mindshare of Microsoft Azure File Storage is 8.1%, down from 11.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS is 0.7%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Public Cloud Storage Services Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Azure File Storage8.1%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS0.7%
Other91.2%
Public Cloud Storage Services
 

Featured Reviews

Karthik-A - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Has simplified customer data management and improved file transfer workflows
We are using AWS as well, and the main difference is that Microsoft Azure File Storage is more user-friendly for configuration-related and admin-related activities. We do not have to perform many complex activities, making it simpler compared to AWS. Security-wise, there are some concerns because it is in the cloud. The customers need to double-check, and they are not giving complete approval when it comes to security. I would rate Microsoft Azure File Storage's security compliance features seven or eight out of ten. It is secure, but since it is in the cloud, we have to convince customers when providing solutions. Many questions were raised while providing the architecture and solution for this file transfer management system. We convinced them because we have the feature and showed a demo, but it is still a prototype. We have to get approval before starting the work. The data redundancy options in Microsoft Azure File Storage are good. I am facing some challenges in convincing customers, and additional information would be helpful to address these challenges. Microsoft Azure File Storage saves time compared to AWS. We tried the prototype in AWS as well, but Azure is easier. Regarding cost, it is slightly less compared to AWS. The functionality of Microsoft Azure File Storage does not pose any issues, though basic users find it complex and require training. Regarding stability, I would rate Microsoft Azure File Storage 8.5 to 9. Scalability in Microsoft Azure File Storage is impressive. We recently handled a huge transaction during an iPhone launch without any problems.
reviewer2039379 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution Architect at a university with 10,001+ employees
Great migrations, useful integrations, and offers good data replication
The local libraries from NetApp to NetApp are good. This way, we don't have to put the middleman in between to do the transition or conversion. The NetApp Cloud Volume Services for AWS has been helping migrate workloads onto the cloud. We did migrate a couple of native applications into AWS using this, and it was helpful. In terms of the integration with AWS native services, I did not configure it by myself. There was another team who did it. That said, I presume they didn't run into any issues, which is why we are using it. While the solution did not help us reduce the amount of storage, it allowed us to have data replicated across on-premises and in the cloud, so that we have a backup in DR. While it did not reduce the footprint, it helped DR expansion. It increased redundancy. Since deploying the product, we have not been affected by ransomware or other external threats.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Implementing Microsoft Azure has meant that we are using the same solution as our customers who use Azure Public Cloud. This allows us to integrate our application, as well as provide the solution to them."
"Azure File Storage gives good value for money, so I don't find it expensive."
"The overall solution is great."
"The security features and the ease of integration are good."
"Implementations with other products are easy."
"The solution can scale to fit any requirement."
"The functionality is easy."
"The most valuable aspect of Azure File Storage is that all the features are available in one place."
"The NetApp Cloud Volume Services for AWS has been helping migrate workloads onto the cloud. We did migrate a couple of native applications into AWS using this, and it was helpful."
 

Cons

"The availability of file storage information requires significant research and learning. The information is not readily available on the internet, so we have to double-check and understand everything."
"In our use cases, we see the weakness in mobile internet connectivity."
"The initial setup is complex. Unless you have done it a few times it, it is going to be hard."
"It’s a challenge to find the right support person."
"It should allow better methods for handling large files."
"It's not very intuitive. I'd like the screen to be more user-friendly. The usability is not good."
"The transparency of cost should be improved."
"Considering the enterprise licensing required for the solution, the cost of the solution is an area where the product needs improvement."
"We'd like the solution to be less expensive and offer lower latency."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product's pricing need improvement."
"The price is comparable to other competitive solutions."
"The pricing is usually dependent on your storage requirements. Overall, I believe Microsoft Azure File Storage's price is reasonable."
"The product must improve its price."
"Microsoft Azure File Storage has a reasonable price."
"One needs to pay according to the storage they plan to use in the solution. The payments are to be made yearly. It is usually monthly, but we opted for yearly subscriptions in our company."
"The price of Microsoft Azure File Storage is expensive, we do not know exactly how the price is calculated."
"The solution is a bit pricey compared to AWS and Google."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Public Cloud Storage Services solutions are best for your needs.
885,789 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Marketing Services Firm
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business18
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise25
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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 cost of Microsoft Azure File Storage depends on the storage account, whether it is premium or standard; there is a cost difference, with the cost being higher for premium and lower for standard...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

MS Azure File Storage
Cloud Volumes Service for AWS, NetApp CVS for AWS, CVS for AWS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Talon, Camden
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google, Nutanix and others in Public Cloud Storage Services. Updated: March 2026.
885,789 professionals have used our research since 2012.