We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Object 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."Microsoft Azure Object Storage is flexible and has all the features we need."
"This solution is easy to use, and performance-wise it is better than others."
"Technical support has been excellent."
"This product is very reliable and all of the security that our client requires is available."
"Object Storage's best features are the soft delete option and the retention period."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is an easy-to-use and stable solution."
"The most important thing for me is reliability."
"We can do data queries easily."
"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."
"One of the most valuable features is its similarity to the physical app, which makes it familiar. It's almost identical to a real NetApp, which means you can run all of the associated NetApp processes and services with it. Otherwise, we would definitely have to deploy some hardware on a site somewhere, which could be a challenge in terms of CapEx."
"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."
"They have very good support team who is very helpful. They will help you with every aspect of getting the deployment done."
"There is unified storage, which provides flexibility. It is set up perfectly for performance and provisioning. We are able to monitor everything using a separate application. It provides error and critical warnings that allow us to take immediate action through ONTAP. We are able to manage everything, log a case, and follow up with the support team, who can fix it. That is how it is unified."
"For us, the value comes from the solution's flexibility, speed, and hopefully cost savings in the long term."
"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."
"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."
"The initial setup is not easy to understand."
"The solution needs to improve the custom domain integration with static web pages. Even though Blog Storage is providing the static content hosting feature, due to the custom domain availability, the integration is not available. In most cases, we withdraw from that service and use our app service to host our static data feeds."
"Its user interface could be better."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a pretty expensive solution."
"A more comprehensive training option is needed."
"If we look at the different versions of that ADLS, it really does not have a hierarchical storage mechanism."
"They could improve AI and ML-based modules. They should add more modules based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. Pricing is a little bit tricky with Microsoft Azure. They do provide the estimates, but it is not easy to guess the exact amount that we will be billed after a month or two because it is based on usage. This is a little confusing."
"The solution's stability should be improved."
"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."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to see the Azure NetApp Files have the capability of doing SnapMirrors. Azure NetApp Files is, as we know, is an AFF system and it's not used in any of the Microsoft resources. It's basically NetApp hardware, so the best performance you can achieve, but the only reason we can't use that right now is because of the region that it's available in. The second was the SnapMirror capability that we didn't have that we heavily rely on right now."
"It definitely needs improvement with respect to clustering and with respect to more collaborative integrations with Azure. Right now, we have very limited functionalities with Azure, except for storage. If CVO could be integrated with Azure that would help. When there is any sort of maintenance happening in the cloud, it disrupts the service in Cloud Volumes ONTAP."
"We would like to have support for high availability in multi-regions."
"Not a perfect ten because it's not very efficient with upgrades and management."
"I'm very happy with the solution, the only thing that needs improvement is the web services API. It could be a little bit more straightforward. That's my only issue with it. It can get pretty complex."
"The key feature, that we'd like to see in that is the ability to sync between regions within the AWS and Azure regions. We could use the cloud sync service, but we'd really like that native functionality within the cloud volume service."
"I would like to see more information about Cloud Volumes ONTAP using Google Cloud Platform on NetApp's website."
More Microsoft Azure Object Storage Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Object Storage is ranked 10th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 43 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 6th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 60 reviews. Microsoft Azure Object Storage is rated 8.0, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Object Storage writes "Easy to query, offers great security, and integrates well with other Microsoft applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Microsoft Azure Object Storage is most compared with Oracle Cloud Object Storage, Wasabi, Amazon S3 and Nutanix Unified Storage, 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 Object 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.
