We performed a comparison between Azure NetApp Files and Microsoft Azure 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."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."
"Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."
"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."
"One aspect of Azure NetApp Files that I truly appreciate is its remarkable performance capabilities."
"Its security and ease of use are most valuable."
"It has saved a lot of time. Because in the older, conventional hardware system, they need to raise a ticket to go to storage engineering, then storage engineering would increased the size. Now, it's dynamic. You don't have to do anything. This improved the time by more than 50 percent."
"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."
"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."
"The features of Microsoft Azure Object Storage that are most valuable are the ones providing encryption. Access is more controlled using private endpoints and SaaS token keys. Many access control features exist."
"The solution is stable. It works fine for us."
"We have had a good experience with customer service and support."
"The most important thing for me is reliability."
"It is a stable solution and serve our purposes"
"The reason is that I believe they only offer the corporate interface we use, and perhaps they should consider creating a historical customer interface. I haven't created a virtual machine; instead, I've established a personal GED. This allows me to provide customers with the necessary role functions, enabling them to download files without incurring excessive costs."
"Versioning is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of Azure Object Storage for us is its simplicity and reliability as a storage solution."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"Reserved Instances for Azure NetApp Files would improve more use cases, making them more valuable in Azure as the cost would be reduced."
"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."
"The pricing definitely needs to be improved."
"We would like to see more paired regions for the replication."
"The product is expensive."
"Object Storage's integration with other backup software could be improved."
"We have experienced a data copy bottleneck with the AZ copy using Microsoft Azure Object Storage, this should improve. It has high CPU consumption. There are a couple of ways to copy files fast, we have tried a few ways. Other than AZ copy, we can use Azure Fluent Storage, which also takes a lot of time to copy files. The AZ copy is faster but it takes a lot of time and CPU operations."
"The initial setup is not easy to understand."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage needs to increase its response time from 25,000 per second to 40,000 or 50,000."
"The solution's stability should be improved."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a pretty expensive solution."
"We're still testing the solution. It's too early to make any suggestions as to what may be missing."
More Microsoft Azure Object Storage Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure NetApp Files is ranked 7th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 15 reviews while Microsoft Azure Object Storage is ranked 10th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 45 reviews. Azure NetApp Files is rated 8.2, while Microsoft Azure Object Storage is rated 8.0. 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 Object Storage writes "Can be used to safely store big datasets in the cloud at a reasonable price". Azure NetApp Files is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Nasuni and NetApp ONTAP, whereas Microsoft Azure Object Storage is most compared with Oracle Cloud Object Storage, Wasabi and Amazon S3. See our Azure NetApp Files vs. Microsoft Azure 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.
