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

NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud vs OpenText Migrate​ comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 19, 2025

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

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Cloud Migration
18th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Storage (18th), Public Cloud Storage Services (19th)
OpenText Migrate​
Ranking in Cloud Migration
11th
Average Rating
7.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.0
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Migration Tools (5th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Cloud Migration category, the mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 1.6%, down from 2.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of OpenText Migrate​ is 4.7%, up from 3.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Migration
 

Featured Reviews

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.
RM
A third-party migration tool that works well in Windows environments but needs improvement in Linux environments
Migration in RHEL and Linux environments can be improved. During RHEL migration with multiple data areas, you have to create a similar source environment at the destination. This can be challenging because you have to install it, create the VM, install over it, and mount it at the mount point. Only then can you do the migration. As a prerequisite in the case of a Windows platform, the .NET framework may cause some challenges as well. This can be done only in the latest version and is not possible in the earlier versions. We could do the migration for a customer with the older version but only after upgrading to the newer version of the .NET servers. This requires application downtime, and if the customer does not want any downtime during the migration, it can be very challenging. I would also like to see improvement in the data analytical loopholes in terms of Linux migration.

Quotes from Members

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

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."
"Carbonite Migrate works well in Windows platform migrations and in the case of a VML platform. The migration is smooth in Windows environments."
"Carbonite Migrate is helpful on an infrastructure level."
"The solution is user-friendly."
 

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."
"Carbonite failed when moving GIS data."
"Migration in RHEL and Linux environments can be improved. During RHEL migration with multiple data areas, you have to create a similar source environment at the destination. This can be challenging because you have to install it, create the VM, install over it, and mount it at the mount point. Only then can you do the migration."
"We find it very difficult to use these tools in a multi-cloud environment"
 

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."
"In terms of pricing, I think it's an expensive tool."
"The licensing costs are really high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
34%
Manufacturing Company
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Government
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What needs improvement with Carbonite Migrate?
Carbonite failed when moving GIS data. Therefore, scalability is an issue as it struggles with migrating heavy data, specifically GIS data.
What is your primary use case for Carbonite Migrate?
We initially used Carbonite for cloud migration, specifically for moving data from one cloud to another. We moved from a RACS-based environment to VMware.
 

Also Known As

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
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Atos, Bandwidth, Wuxi NextCode
Computrade Malaysia
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud vs. OpenText Migrate​ and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.
859,129 professionals have used our research since 2012.