Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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 7.8, while NetApp is ranked #19. Microsoft holds a 2.4% mindshare in PCSS, compared to NetApp’s 1.0% 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 56 Microsoft Azure Object Storage reviews
  • 569 Views
  • 558 Comparison Views
88% willing to recommend
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Read 3 NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud reviews
  • 420 Views
  • 202 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
 

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.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Report (Updated: September 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
September 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 869,202 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
6.8
Number of Reviews
56
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
19th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (22nd), Cloud Storage (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Public Cloud Storage Services category, the mindshare of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is 2.4%, up from 1.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 1.0%, up from 0.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Public Cloud Storage Services Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Azure Object Storage2.4%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud1.0%
Other96.6%
Public Cloud Storage Services
 

Featured Reviews

Akram Zabat - PeerSpot reviewer
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
CC
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 installation of the product is quite easy, because automation is already in place, allowing easy deployment and integration with any file server and the requirements involved."
"The reason is that I believe they only offer the corporate interface we use, and perhaps they should consider creating a historical customer interface. I haven't created a virtual machine; instead, I've established a personal GED. This allows me to provide customers with the necessary role functions, enabling them to download files without incurring excessive costs."
"This solution is easy to use, and performance-wise it is better than others."
"The tool's maintenance is not complex."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage offers hassle-free usage. It is easy to configure."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is an easy-to-use and stable solution."
"Object Storage's best features are the soft delete option and the retention period."
"What I like most about Microsoft Azure Object Storage is that you have many ways to access it."
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."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"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."
"Object re-use should be improved in order to get better performance and reduce the cost."
"Improvements should be made as per customer requirements."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage needs to increase its response time from 25,000 per second to 40,000 or 50,000."
"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."
"Currently, the Microsoft Azure Storage Explorer is just a Windows app. I don't know if it's available on mobile, such as iOS or Android. I don't know if the app is mobile-friendly. It should be mobile-friendly."
"Technical support should be a little bit faster."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage needs to improve stability and cloud user interface."
More Microsoft Azure Object Storage cons
"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."
"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

"The solution's cost is on a pay-per-use basis."
"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."
"I would rate the pricing a four out of ten because there is a lot of competition out there."
"The cost should be reduced to make it more competitive."
"Object Storage is cost-effective, and our license fees are about $200 per month."
"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."
"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."
"You can download the application from Microsoft free of charge."
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."
report
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
869,202 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Retailer
9%
Computer Software Company
22%
Manufacturing Company
18%
Financial Services Firm
18%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise21
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 Logo
Oracle Cloud Object Storage vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage
Compared 44% of the time
Amazon S3 vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage Logo
Amazon S3 vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage
Compared 34% of the time
Amazon S3 Glacier vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage Logo
Amazon S3 Glacier vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage
Compared 22% of the time
More Microsoft Azure Object Storage Competitors
Google Cloud Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Logo
Google Cloud Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
Compared 33% of the time
Amazon FSx vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Logo
Amazon FSx vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
Compared 25% of the time
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Logo
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
Compared 22% of the time
Dropbox Business - Enterprise vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Logo
Dropbox Business - Enterprise vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
Compared 20% of the time
More NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Microsoft Azure Object Storage
September 2025
Microsoft Azure Object Storage reportDownload Microsoft Azure Object Storage product report
Buyer's Guide
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
September 2025
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud reportDownload 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
September 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: September 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
869,202 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.