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

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

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 1, 2024

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
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
17th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (24th), Cloud Storage (19th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2026, in the Public Cloud Storage Services category, the mindshare of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is 3.3%, up from 2.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 3.5%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Public Cloud Storage Services Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Azure Object Storage3.3%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud3.5%
Other93.2%
Public Cloud Storage Services
 

Featured Reviews

PS
Enterprise Architect at ATOS
Has supported hybrid deployments but needs stronger security features and improved handling of sudden storage spikes
For areas of improvement, they have all the features from Azure Monitor and Azure Cost Manager, which provide insights into consumption, and the policies are already taken care of, but it needs enhancement in security aspects. Security alerts and integrations could be improved as part of lifecycle management, especially for archives and restoration requirements, along with automations that we can plan. For GRS, they should offer it by default because many providers are entering the market and providing similar features, making it quite competitive from a price point of view. There are some limitations related to quotas and storage requirements. For drastic demands, we may need to provide quotas and other requirements to Microsoft for them to manage forecast and capacity planning. If there are sudden ad hoc needs that involve petabytes, there should be storage availability in the data center hosting that storage. This relates to temporary spikes in storage needs; for example, if storage is needed for a week with huge requirements, Microsoft should adapt to these requirements effectively.
CC
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"We have had a good experience with customer service and support."
"The most important thing for me is reliability."
"The idea of being able to hold a backup outside of our premises just in case of a disaster allows for the possibility of an easy data recovery process."
"The most valuable feature is the API because it is very flexible."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is its ease of use."
"Object Storage's best feature is that it's easy to deploy."
"What I like most about Microsoft Azure Object Storage is that you have many ways to access it."
"Azure cloud services are quite an easy solution with many tools to operate, such as the CLI, software development kit, and the portal."
"Overall, they have very impressive technologies."
"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."
"It is a good service for high availability that is very easy to configure."
"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

"Technical support should be a little bit faster."
"The cost should be reduced to make it more competitive."
"The customer support for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not good."
"Security alerts and integrations could be improved as part of lifecycle management, especially for archives and restoration requirements, along with automations that we can plan."
"The solution needs to improve the custom domain integration with static web pages."
"Technical support with Microsoft is a bigger challenge as finding the right person to support you and actually getting that person on the call is hard."
"The improvement needed for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is to reduce the transactional charges, as these read and write operation charges are higher."
"The pricing of the solution can be improved."
"The user interface has room for improvement."
"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."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It has a pay-as-you-go model. So, you are only paying for what you store. It's an attractive model. You don't pay for a set; you pay for what you actually use."
"Additional costs depend on the data and complexity of the project."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not expensive."
"I think we pay per bit as per usage. There is a billing pattern for the subscription, and we get a monthly bill. I've seen that happen over there. I haven't seen any fixed costs. It always depends on what we're using and how much the servers are running. The breakdown appears on the bill."
"The tool's licensing costs are annual. It should be made reasonable."
"The solution is not affordable for small businesses."
"For the cloud, you get charges every day if you are going to download anything, besides the cost for storage those charges are always there."
"Object Storage is cost-effective, and our license fees are about $200 per month."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Public Cloud Storage Services solutions are best for your needs.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Marketing Services Firm
14%
Construction Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Construction Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise21
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Object Storage?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is very good.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Azure Object Storage?
The customer support for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not good. If a good engineer is assigned, then it functions well. However, every time we are doing troubleshooting, it is not Microsoft.
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Azure Object Storage?
I have used Microsoft Azure Object Storage, which is a blob storage service. Our customers use the services that we provide for blob storage. Our customers use applications, and Microsoft Azure Obj...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

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

 

Sample Customers

Umbraco, Xbox, Radioshack, 343 Industries, McKesson
Atos, Bandwidth, Wuxi NextCode
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
908,877 professionals have used our research since 2012.