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

"I appreciate the scalability of this solution; it is fully scalable and excellent for certain tasks."

"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is an easy-to-use and stable solution."

"The most valuable features of the solution are its performance and stability."

"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is flexible and has all the features we need."

"This product is very reliable and all of the security that our client requires is available."

"Microsoft Azure Object Storage provides a platform for uploading or downloading big datasets."

"For security solutions in Microsoft Azure, I particularly appreciate Microsoft Azure AI foundation."

"We can do data queries easily."

"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."

"The deployment process needs improvement, and it requires a lot of expertise to use and to utilize it."

"The administration of the solution is not as easy as we would like it to be."

"I would like to see a reduction in pricing so that they can be more competitive."

"Azure's technical support could be better - they take a long time to respond, and issues get transferred to multiple engineers, so you have to repeat the whole story every time without getting any proper resolution."

"We have experienced a data copy bottleneck with the AZ copy using Microsoft Azure Object Storage, this should improve. It has high CPU consumption. There are a couple of ways to copy files fast, we have tried a few ways. Other than AZ copy, we can use Azure Fluent Storage, which also takes a lot of time to copy files. The AZ copy is faster but it takes a lot of time and CPU operations."

"Object re-use should be improved in order to get better performance and reduce the cost."

"The solution's stability should be improved."

"Our current Azure setup faces challenges with API connectivity, particularly due to misconfigurations related to changes in Azure Graph."

"We'd like the solution to be less expensive and offer lower latency."

"Object Storage is competitively priced."

"The pricing for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is high and needs some reduction. It's a seven out of ten, price-wise, because it currently limits your consumption, so the solution should have better pricing."

"I would rate the pricing a four out of ten because there is a lot of competition out there."

"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is an expensive solution."

"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not expensive."

"The tool's licensing costs are annual. It should be made reasonable."

"We don't need to pay for the solution's license."

"The tool has a pay-per-use pricing model...There is no need to pay extra money for the licensing costs since the price is based on the storage you consume."