We performed a comparison between IBM Cloud Object Storage and NetApp StorageGRID based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two File and Object Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The standout feature of IBM Cloud Object Storage is its top-notch security, making it ideal for sensitive applications like mobile financial transactions."
"The most valuable feature I like is when you connect it via CLI plug-in...It is a stable solution."
"IBM has the most number of additional services, this is the main advantage."
"IBM Cloud Object Storage integrates well."
"One of Cloud Object Storage's best features is infinite capacity. This is one of the main advantages if you don't want to use your own storage. You also have the ability to write only, write once, and read many. It's like tape storage but software-based. This feature is essential for financial institutions that require that kind of protection if you write backup or data there."
"The integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments."
"It improves our operational efficiency."
"It helps automate our storage infrastructure."
"The speed of the disks removed the bottleneck from our storage."
"Cost-effective and easy to deploy."
"It has enabled us to save money on storage costs. We removed our tape library."
"The ability to get to the StorageGRID from anywhere on my network. The solution is remote. You don't have to be at a physical location."
"The implementation with NetApp went smoothly. It is a 'setup and forget' type of appliance."
"The technical support is good."
"IBM has limited cloud storage."
"IBM Cloud storage is not cheap, but it could be."
"If I had to choose one area, it would be making the consoles more intuitive would be helpful. Sometimes, they can be a little complicated if you're not familiar with them."
"One improvement could be incorporating a feature similar to Dropbox's version history. This would allow users to track modifications made to files over time, which is particularly important for maintaining a record of changes. While the free version might not include this feature, it could be included in the paid version to provide added value to clients. Additionally, having a version history feature that allows users to access modifications made to files over the past three months could be beneficial."
"One area where IBM Cloud Object Storage could potentially improve is in modernizing its underlying codebase."
"The performance could be better. It isn't bad, but everything is network-based, so you have a performance penalty on the network. You can never achieve the same performance as hardware. That's the disadvantage of cloud storage solutions in general. Cloud performance is one of the main issues clients have."
"The performance could improve in IBM Cloud Object Storage. The throughput or objects per second can have degradation."
"It has its quirks here and there, but it is an older NetApp system."
"The redundancy and reliability are great, but I also see room for improvement there. I would like to see more efficiency in the storage and dedupe/compression solutions."
"Data retrieval speed could be better."
"Beyond the initial setup, this product is a little bit difficult to configure."
"There was a small amount of confusion when working with StorageGRID and Active Directory for access. We had to do things three to four times resulting in our engineer troubleshooting a couple of things. The location of the menu, along with what is inside the menu: configurations, settings, etc., is not straightforward to users. Most users are Windows-based. So, when make logical changes to the menu which are not similar to Windows, users and administrators get confused."
"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."
"The only real issue that we have run into is, when we are cloning, we cannot do a thin provision clone, it has to be a full clone."
"Improvements need to be made in the support area."
IBM Cloud Object Storage is ranked 10th in File and Object Storage with 7 reviews while NetApp StorageGRID is ranked 7th in File and Object Storage with 12 reviews. IBM Cloud Object Storage is rated 8.0, while NetApp StorageGRID is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM Cloud Object Storage writes "Offers the ease with which you can move data between on-premises storage and the cloud and then retrieve it back on-premises when necessary". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp StorageGRID writes "Scalable object storage with robust data durability with efficient geo-distribution and comprehensive lifecycle management ensuring managing of large volumes of unstructured data". IBM Cloud Object Storage is most compared with Red Hat Ceph Storage, MinIO, Dell ECS, IBM Spectrum Scale and Dell PowerScale (Isilon), whereas NetApp StorageGRID is most compared with MinIO, Dell ECS, Red Hat Ceph Storage, Scality RING and VAST Data. See our IBM Cloud Object Storage 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.
