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

Microsoft and NetApp are both solutions in the Public Cloud Storage Services category. Microsoft is ranked #12 with an average rating of 7.9, while NetApp is ranked #20. Microsoft holds a 2.1% mindshare in PCSS, compared to NetApp’s 0.8% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of NetApp users who would recommend it.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Read 54 Microsoft Azure Object Storage reviews

511 Views
501 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Read 3 NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud reviews

404 Views
214 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Microsoft Azure Object Storage

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 1, 2024

Microsoft Azure Object Storage and NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud offer robust cloud storage solutions. Users are generally happier with the support and pricing of Microsoft Azure Object Storage. However, NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud seems superior due to its extensive features, and users feel it justifies the higher price.

Features: Microsoft Azure Object Storage is praised for its secure data management, high availability, and reliable support. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is noted for its performance, ease of use, and seamless integration with Google Cloud services.

Room for Improvement: Users suggest Microsoft Azure Object Storage could improve in interface intuitiveness, integration options, and documentation clarity. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud could benefit from enhanced data mobility, cost efficiency, and user interface enhancements.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Microsoft Azure Object Storage shows a more straightforward deployment model, with users appreciating the responsive customer service. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is recognized for its efficient deployment but with slightly slower customer service response times.

Pricing and ROI: Microsoft Azure Object Storage users find setup costs reasonable and see good ROI. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud exhibits higher initial setup costs but compensates with significant ROI due to its features and integrations.

To learn more, read our detailed Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,384 peers since 2012

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 Object Storage

Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services

12th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

7.0

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services

20th

Average Rating

9.4

Reviews Sentiment

8.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Cloud Migration (19th), Cloud Storage (18th)

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Public Cloud Storage Services category, the mindshare of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is 2.1%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 0.8%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Public Cloud Storage Services

Featured Reviews

Akram Zabat

Consultant - Architecture Solution at Onepoint

Provides versatile data storage solutions with a simple setup and easy to use

It's similar to S3 for AWS. The ability to store everything inside Blob or Object storage and use it for archiving data is beneficial. For example, you can transform data from relational databases, flatten it, and store it in Object storage to save space within the databases. If I want to save data and do not require legacy access, it's a good solution, for instance, to migrate archives from databases to Object storage. This can also be used for business intelligence purposes. Having a storage solution for data makes it the best place to store it. Azure has its own solution for StatsQ Web Apps.

Read full review

Colin Constable

Co-Founder at Atsign

Enables us to fine-tune storage and capacity on the fly as our needs grow or shrink over time

NetApp delivers High Availability. It's critical to our work. That was the main driver for using NetApp. We have a highly resilient service and if you have a highly resilient service, you are only as resilient as the least resilient part of your infrastructure. That's what we were having trouble with our file system before. It was becoming troublesome, so we needed to find something that was much more highly resilient so that's why we moved to NetApp. The complexity of moving large numbers of files to the cloud depends on what you're trying to do. But for us, it was really simple. I imagine for large enterprise customers it is probably pretty tricky. They're probably on all different technologies inside a large corporation and they may or may not have very large pipes going to them. So if you're in a data center to the cloud then it's going to be easy, but if you have hundreds of branches like if you're a bank and have lots of branch banks, they might have very small pipes out to the internet. It might take forever. In our use case everything's brand new files, so it was pretty trivial. We didn't migrate to the cloud, we were already on the cloud, so it was a nonissue for us. NetApp enables us to share data across VMs. It actually reduced the amount of data storage we need. We were having to have storage attached to each VM. And now we can aggregate that storage across multiple VMs, so that actually gave us a net reduction, which was a good thing. We switched from using block storage to file storage to share data between our VMs. It made it easier, frankly but I worry about the scalability in the future. For the moment it made life easier. We were using block and then we moved back to file with NetApp.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The best thing is it's on the cloud. It's easily accessible to everyone through a mobile device, tablet, or laptop. Secondly, it's secure. Like any URL shared will not work after a few hours. Only the person concerned who has that URL can use it within a few hours to download the document. After that, it expires. Thirdly, we all keep an archive. For example, if there are old documents, they are still stored over there. Another nice Azure feature is that they have the regional set up for that storage, and there's no downtime, and I'm grateful for that. We don't have to worry, because it's secure. If something goes down, they have other copies of it on a separate server, and it's accessible."

"The most valuable feature is the API because it is very flexible."

"Technical support is excellent."

"The features of Microsoft Azure Object Storage that are most valuable are the ones providing encryption. Access is more controlled using private endpoints and SaaS token keys. Many access control features exist."

"The layout of Microsoft is professional."

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

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

"The tool's maintenance is not complex."

More Microsoft Azure Object Storage pros

"In terms of its storage snapshot efficiencies, the service is highly efficient. We are only doing things in small batches right now because we have not converted all of the data, but we have tested them in the Google Cloud and they work efficiently."

"High availability is very important to us because we have a production environment. High availability is the highest priority for us to continue keeping our systems running."

"Storage was taking up maybe 10 to 20% of my life at the startup, and now it takes up zero. I was personally running all the infrastructure for the company. Now that we've moved to NetApp, I don't have to worry about making sure it's up and running. It's made my life personally much better."

Cons

"Sometimes, I have issues with the Microsoft portal, which interrupts the service."

"Object Storage's integration with other backup software could be improved."

"The initial setup could be more straightforward. It would be best if you had a little bit of training or an understanding of the concepts. It's important because if you don't do that, then you might end up not following the best practices. Then you will learn it the hard way by making mistakes and then know that you shouldn't have done this or that. It's better to attend workshops and take a hands-on approach."

"A more comprehensive training option is needed."

"We've seen some performance issues with Azure Table storage. It's quite slow. The performance surrounding it should be improved to speed things up a bit."

"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."

"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."

More Microsoft Azure Object Storage cons

"It would help if they increased the area in which they employ artificial intelligence, by starting to do assessments on the environments, to project those. They're not using any AI tools, currently, on the administrative side."

"I would like for the sales team to get in contact more often and let me know what I should be doing next, what we should be doing about new features. So it would be nice if I heard a little bit more from him. From a technology perspective, I have no complaints."

"The user interface has room for improvement. We would like this service to be more integrated with Azure, which is very easy to manage and use. It was easy to create volumes and add capacity pools in Azure, but in Google Cloud, we can only create separate volumes. We need more management or configuration options in the user interface."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Object Storage is competitively priced."

"The pricing can be improved. There is an yearly licensing cost for the solution. There are some reserve instances that are additional to the licensing cost."

"The cost of this solution is high compared to others, although there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."

"I'm not aware of the licensing cost, as my customer handles it. In Taiwan, it's reasonably priced."

"The licensing cost of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is monthly. We have two types of licenses. One is the EA enterprise license and the other is a CSP license."

"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not expensive."

"Encryption feature is an add-on."

"Object Storage is cost-effective, and our license fees are about $200 per month."

More Microsoft Azure Object Storage pricing and cost advice

"We don't need so much space, and there is no option to pay as we go or use just what we need. Also, the only way to increase performance is by increasing the level of the service."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Public Cloud Storage Services solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

20%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Retailer

Insurance Company

Manufacturing Company

23%

Computer Software Company

20%

Financial Services Firm

20%

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Microsoft Azure Object Storage?

The layout of Microsoft is professional.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Object Storage?

The licensing cost of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is cheaper compared to other competitors, such as Google or third-party solutions, which easily engages customers. They also get multiple servic...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Microsoft Azure Object Storage?

The improvement needed for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is to reduce the transactional charges, as these read and write operation charges are higher. If reduced, we could engage more customers. M...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Oracle Cloud Object Storage vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Compared 43% of the time

Amazon S3 vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Compared 33% of the time

Amazon S3 Glacier vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Compared 15% of the time

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Compared 9% of the time

More Microsoft Azure Object Storage Competitors

Google Cloud Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Compared 38% of the time

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Compared 34% of the time

Amazon FSx vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Compared 28% of the time

More NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Azure Object Storage

August 2025

Download Microsoft Azure Object Storage product report

Buyer's Guide

NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

August 2025

NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud report

Download NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud product report

Also Known As

Microsoft Azure Blob Storage, Azure Object Storage, MS Azure Object Storage

CVS for Google Cloud, NetApp CVS for Google Cloud, Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud, Cloud Volumes Service for GCP, NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for GCP

Overview

REST-based object storage for unstructured data in the cloud

Store infrequently accessed data in a low-cost cool storage tier
Store frequently accessed application data in a hot storage tier
Stream video, audio, and other media to web, mobile, or desktop applications
Power big data analytics
Access your data more securely, both over the wire and at rest

Microsoft

NetApp^® Cloud Volumes for Google Cloud is a fully managed or self-managed file service that is integrated into Google Cloud with the multiprotocol support, performance, and availability required to run business-critical applications. It is designed to provide massively parallel shared access to thousands of Google Compute Engine and Google Kubernetes Engine instances, enabling your applications to achieve high levels of aggregate throughput and IOPS with consistent low latencies.

Use cases. Customers can use the service to migrate existing enterprise applications to Google Cloud. Other use cases include hybrid deployments, multicloud mobility, big data analytics, web serving and content management, application development and testing, media and entertainment workflows, database backups, container storage, and more.

Features. Multiple performance tiers, standard file interfaces, advanced data management, metered service, fully managed service, native service experience, integrated support, and integrated billing.

For more information:

NetApp: https://cloud.netapp.com/cloud-volumes-service-for-gcp

Google: https://cloud.google.com/netapp

NetApp

Sample Customers

Umbraco, Xbox, Radioshack, 343 Industries, McKesson

Atos, Bandwidth, Wuxi NextCode

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

July 2025

Free Report: Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud 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.