"The features that I have found most valuable with MinIO is its coding bit rot protection and how it distributes the workload over all the servers."
"For starters, MinIO has a good user interface. You can access it through the browser and perform operations like creating the object."
"The ability to spawn a MinIO Tenant on demand and shut it down right after is most valuable."
"Good interface and a good approach to development and testing environments."
"Nice web interface, easy to use, with a low memory footprint."
"This is an all-in-one, user-friendly data storage."
"The most valuable features are that MinIO is open, it works on-premise, and is compatible with the Amazon industry which is great for finding compatible libraries in many languages which is very good for developers."
"The initial setup was straightforward as MinIO provided good support documentation and took a couple of days to complete."
"The technical support is good."
"Cost-effective and easy to deploy."
"The backup features are valuable. I've heard from our backup and data protection people that our clients are very satisfied with the performance in junction with the backup, which they archive on this type of object storage."
"Documentation could be improved."
"The Distributed User Interface (DUI) needs some work. It's hard to view a large set of data on the DUI. It's an issue with the DUI's performance."
"We had minor bugs occasionally."
"Lacks documentation for non-Kubernetes users."
"MinIO could use a time patch on it. It could also use better documentation for some languages like Python."
"MinIO has behaved strangely in the past. For instance, the application dropped connection to MinIO. It's not too significant, but it loses connection. We're trying to understand exactly what is happening when this happens."
"There is a lack of good addons to integrate without having to use third-party applications."
"The scalability is one of the limitations we have found. We are looking for another solution but they must provide the same characteristics, such as an affordable price and continuity."
"Beyond the initial setup, this product is a little bit difficult to configure."
"Improvements need to be made in the support area."
"The price is something that NetApp could improve, as with most companies. NetApp is known for not being the cheapest storage option, which is also valid for StorageGRID. There are other storage options on the market which we are aware of and have done proofs of concept for, but you cannot really compare the list prices because, as a big user of NetApp storages, we have totally different prices than some list prices. Still, the price information we got for other options are almost always less expensive than StorageGRID."
MinIO is ranked 2nd in File and Object Storage with 16 reviews while NetApp StorageGRID is ranked 8th in File and Object Storage with 3 reviews. MinIO is rated 8.0, while NetApp StorageGRID is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of MinIO writes "Offers good object retrieval performance and scalability; but native monitoring tools don't work above a certain bucket size". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp StorageGRID writes "Very satisfied with the backup performance". MinIO is most compared with Red Hat Ceph Storage, Dell ECS, Pure Storage FlashBlade, SwiftStack and Scality RING8, whereas NetApp StorageGRID is most compared with Dell ECS, Red Hat Ceph Storage, Cloudian HyperStore, Scality RING8 and IBM Cloud Object Storage. See our MinIO vs. NetApp StorageGRID report.
See our list of best File and Object Storage vendors.
We monitor all File and Object Storage 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.
