We compared Microsoft Azure File Storage and Azure NetApp Files based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Microsoft Azure File Storage offers strong security measures and efficient file sharing capabilities, with positive remarks on customer service. The pricing is considered competitive, and businesses have seen a significant ROI. However, users note a desire for faster file transfer speeds and an improved interface. Azure NetApp Files emphasizes high performance, scalability, and seamless workload migration, along with excellent customer support. Users find the cost and setup reasonable, experiencing cost savings and enhanced performance. Feedback suggests a need for improved performance during peak times, better documentation, a more intuitive interface, and enhanced security features.
Features: Microsoft Azure File Storage offers valuable features such as scalability, integration with Azure services, efficient file sharing, strong security, and seamless file management. On the other hand, Azure NetApp Files stands out for its ease of use, high performance, scalability, reliability, and seamless migration capabilities. Additionally, users appreciate its cost-effectiveness and excellent customer support.
Pricing and ROI: The setup costs for Microsoft Azure File Storage and Azure NetApp Files are both considered reasonable and affordable based on user feedback. Users appreciate the straightforward and easy management of setup for Microsoft Azure File Storage, while Azure NetApp Files offers a transparent pricing structure and flexible licensing options., In terms of return on investment (ROI), Microsoft Azure File Storage was praised for its cost savings, improved efficiency, scalability, reliability, and ease of integration. On the other hand, Azure NetApp Files focused on significant cost savings and enhanced performance.
Room for Improvement: Microsoft Azure File Storage could benefit from enhancements in file transfer speed, a more intuitive interface, and expanded storage options. In contrast, Azure NetApp Files needs improvements in performance during peak times, documentation and support resources, user interface intuitiveness, security features, and data migration efficiency.
Deployment and customer support: Based on user feedback, it appears that the duration required to establish a new tech solution can vary for both Microsoft Azure File Storage and Azure NetApp Files. However, Azure NetApp Files seems to offer more flexibility in terms of varying timeframes for deployment, setup, and implementation phases. It is necessary to consider the context in which these terms are used to accurately evaluate the overall time required for the entire process., Microsoft Azure File Storage receives positive remarks regarding its customer service and support, with prompt and helpful assistance. Azure NetApp Files also provides highly recommended customer service, consistently exceeding expectations for a smooth experience.
The summary above is based on 35 interviews we conducted recently with Microsoft Azure File Storage and Azure NetApp Files users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"The availability is good, meaning downtime or network issues rarely occur. The system also offers flexibility, allowing for increases in data volume, IOPS, and other capabilities without requiring downtime, which is a strong point. Based on the money spent, we can get performance improvements and high availability."
"Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."
"Its security and ease of use are most valuable."
"You can change it non-disruptively. You can increase the size and decrease the size online, which is a huge benefit compared to Azure disks. It just works seamlessly. You don't need to stop the instances."
"Azure NetApp Files has been stable."
"I think the easiest part is, when you do a comparison, it is the throughput versus the cost. And it's much easier to set up."
"It's elastic, so it scales with our demands. We can start small, then with the addition of customer loads, we can expand on-the-fly without the need to reprovision something."
"The most valuable features of the solution is replication to another region and the performance. The solution is stable. The solution is scalable. The initial setup is straightforward."
"The solution can scale to fit any requirement."
"It's a scalable solution."
"It is very easy to use SSTP and some traditional code to move the data into a database because we can easily use the permissions and we don't have any integration or conversion issues."
"Implementing Microsoft Azure has meant that we are using the same solution as our customers who use Azure Public Cloud. This allows us to integrate our application, as well as provide the solution to them."
"General user familiarity with Office 365 products make adopting this solution easy to adopt in production."
"The immutable storage features are valuable."
"The functionality is easy."
"It was quick to synchronize back from Azure to the on-premise server."
"The main hurdle in promoting this solution is the price. Its price definitely requires an improvement. It is more expensive than other options, so customers go for a cheaper option."
"Reserved Instances for Azure NetApp Files would improve more use cases, making them more valuable in Azure as the cost would be reduced."
"The main area for improvement is in the support ticket system. Since it's a SaaS platform, support tickets are managed by Microsoft or NetApp backend. This can sometimes lead to cross-functional challenges for organizations."
"I would like to see multi-zone redundancy so that I don't have to worry about it. I just back up my data to that one SMB share and I know that it's replicated to a different region."
"Azure NetApp Files could improve by being more diverse to integrate better with other solutions, such as Splunk and the on-premise version. There are some use cases that are not covered natively by Azure. It is not the best solution because it is not external from the cloud which for me is the best type of solution."
"We would like for the files which are coming in that we can version them. So, if a file is accidentally deleted, there should have a recycle bin option where we can go back, and at least once, clean it up."
"We would like to see more paired regions for the replication."
"I have a hunch that storage could be now the most expensive portion of our monthly bill. So I can imagine that, not this year, but next year we will be talking about looking deeper into ways how we can optimize the cost."
"The upload speed has room for improvement."
"They should make the solution more user-friendly."
"It's not very intuitive."
"Maybe Microsoft can make it more economical because it is a costly affair."
"In our use cases, we see the weakness in mobile internet connectivity."
"Microsoft Azure File Storage should improve its pricing."
"The security could always be modernized."
"The pricing and technical support could be better."
Azure NetApp Files is ranked 7th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 15 reviews while Microsoft Azure File Storage is ranked 3rd in Public Cloud Storage Services with 44 reviews. Azure NetApp Files is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure File Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Azure NetApp Files writes "We can expand our storage on-the-fly without the need to reprovision". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure File Storage writes "Various storage options available, high availability, and quick deployment". Azure NetApp Files is most compared with NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Nasuni, NetApp ONTAP and Google Cloud Storage, whereas Microsoft Azure File Storage is most compared with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Wasabi, Amazon S3 Glacier, Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage. See our Azure NetApp Files vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage 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.
