We performed a comparison between NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP and Oracle Cloud Object Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Public Cloud Storage Services solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."One of the most valuable features is its similarity to the physical app, which makes it familiar. It's almost identical to a real NetApp, which means you can run all of the associated NetApp processes and services with it. Otherwise, we would definitely have to deploy some hardware on a site somewhere, which could be a challenge in terms of CapEx."
"If you have a fair amount of experience with NetApp, you can work on it very easily."
"It's very easy to set up, and within 40 minutes, you can apply storage notes in Azure."
"NetApp's XCP Migration Tool... was pretty awesome. It replicated the data faster than any other tool that I've seen. That was a big help."
"The solution’s unified file and block-storage access across our infrastructure is invaluable. Without it, we can't do what we do."
"This solution has helped us because it is easy to use."
"I like how you can easily pair on-prem with the cloud and the cloud backup feature. I like the whole integration with on-prem and the cloud for SnapMirror relationships."
"The most valuable features of this solution are SnapShot, FlexClone, and deduplication."
"The solution's most valuable features are its speed, unlimited space, and simplicity of use."
"One key feature is that you can make buckets private, requiring pre-authentication and using a specific URL for access. Additionally, the buckets are encrypted by default. The flexibility of public or private buckets and how you grant access are vital security features."
"The most valuable features of the tool are scalability and security."
"In terms of improvement, I would like to see the Azure NetApp Files have the capability of doing SnapMirrors. Azure NetApp Files is, as we know, is an AFF system and it's not used in any of the Microsoft resources. It's basically NetApp hardware, so the best performance you can achieve, but the only reason we can't use that right now is because of the region that it's available in. The second was the SnapMirror capability that we didn't have that we heavily rely on right now."
"The encryption and deduplication features still have a lot of room for improvement."
"How it handles erasure coding. I feel it the improvement should be there. Basically, it should be seamless. You don't want to have an underlying hardware issue or something, then suddenly there's no reads or writes. Luckily, it's at a replication site, so our main production site is still working and writing to it. But, the replication site has stopped right now while we try to bring that node back. Since we implemented in bare-metal, not in appliance, we had to go back to the original vendor. They didn't send it in time, and we had a hardware memory issue. Then, we had a hard disk issue, which brought the node down physically."
"The only area for improvement would be some guidance in terms of the future products that NetApp is planning on releasing. I would like to see communication around that or advice such as, "Hey, the world is moving towards this particular trend, and NetApp can help you do that." I do get promotional emails from NetApp, but customer-specific advice would be helpful, based on our use cases."
"When it comes to support provided by NetApp, they have room for improvement. Every time we go through their support, we end up answering the same routine questions."
"Cloud Volumes ONTAP's interface could use an overhaul. Sometimes you have to dig around in Cloud Manager a little bit to find certain things. The layout could be more intuitive."
"It would be fantastic if NetApp could offer a solution that's as user-friendly as Google Drive for seamless cloud storage integration."
"We want to be able to add more than six disks in aggregate, but there is a limit of the number of disks in aggregate. In GCP, they provide less by limiting the sixth disk in aggregate. In Azure, the same solution provides 12 disks in an aggregate versus GCP where it is just half that amount. They should bump up the disk in aggregate requirement so we don't have to migrate the aggregate from one to another when the capacities are full."
"The solution should provide more customization and the possibility of doing more manual tasks."
"Sometimes, there are glitches with applying policies. Even when the policy is correct, it might not work consistently. We need to troubleshoot to see if it's a user error or if the policy itself needs adjustment. It usually works after refreshing, but that inconsistency is a minor complexity."
"Oracle Cloud Object Storage needs to have an additional bucket for security."
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 5th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 60 reviews while Oracle Cloud Object Storage is ranked 11th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 3 reviews. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8, while Oracle Cloud Object Storage is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Cloud Object Storage writes "A scalable solution that helps to store and share files securely ". NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Cloud Storage and Portworx Enterprise, whereas Oracle Cloud Object Storage is most compared with Amazon S3, Microsoft Azure Object Storage, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) and Oracle Database Backup Service. See our NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs. Oracle Cloud Object 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.