We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Block Storage and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP 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."The product’s security features are valuable."
"RBAC, access control, soft delete, hard delete, and cool and hot storage tiers are some of the features I have found valuable in Azure Block storage."
"In terms of latency, bandwidth, and productivity, Azure Block Storage is better than other solutions."
"I like the product’s versioning and file share features. The file share feature is most useful when we are connecting on-premises services. Azure file share helps to migrate small data amounts from on-premises to the cloud."
"The solution is easy to purchase and is a Microsoft product, making procurement straightforward."
"The tier feature in V2 is the most valuable feature of this solution. It enables you to move your storage from hot tier to cold tier into archive tier."
"This is a very robust and flexible solution."
"The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Block Storage is the security and the management of user access from on-premise to the cloud."
"The most valuable features of this solution are SnapShot, FlexClone, and deduplication."
"ONTAP has been very stable for us, specifically in the cloud environment. It allows us to have high availability as well as standalone systems if that's what we want within our specific workloads. Also, on-premise has been a very stable environment. We have very few outages and when we do, we work with support to get systems back online in a timely manner."
"Lastly, the API and web services are fairly good. That is an important feature too. We write some code to do different things. We have code that runs to make sure that everything is being backed up as we say it is and we try to also detect places where we may have missed a backup."
"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."
"ONTAP is great for helping you migrate on-premise workflows to cloud environments."
"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."
"We're able to use the SnapMirror function and SnapMirror data from our on-prem environment into Azure. That is super-helpful. SnapMirror allows you to take data that exists on one NetApp, on a physical NetApp storage platform, and copy it over to another NetApp storage platform. It's a solid, proven technology, so we don't worry about whether data is getting lost or corrupted during the SnapMirror."
"Unified Manager, System Manager, and Cloud Manager are all GUI-based. It's easy for somebody who has not been exposed to this for years to pick it up and work with it."
"There is a drawback or limitation to the GRS storage feature because depending on the amount of data, it could take a lot of time."
"There have been problems with integration, but it's getting better."
"I have used Amazon's solutions which are better than Microsoft's. However, since I have predominately Microsoft solutions it is a better choice for me to use another Microsoft solution."
"I want to see my region added to the data center. I'm in Africa, and if a data center is specifically added under Central Africa, that will reduce data latency when accessing data."
"There are some space limitations."
"It has been a couple of years since I contacted support. However, at that time, it was difficult to get someone on the call even though it was an issue of high severity."
"The performance could be improved, but all the services in the cloud are improved every week."
"The solution needs a direct connection to visualization."
"When Azure does their maintenance, they do maintenance on one node at a time. With the two nodes of the CVO, it can automatically fail over from one node to the node that is staying up. And when the first node comes back online, it will fail back to the first node. We have had issues with everything failing back 100 percent correctly."
"One difficulty is that it has no SAP HANA certification. The asset performance restrictions create challenges with the infrastructure underneath: The disks and stuff like that often have lower latencies than SAP HANA itself has to have."
"I would like to see them improve the perspective of start and search in the panels. This would allow for better visualization of the contents that are captured in the tool."
"We have used technical support. As long as they don't call me at four o'clock in the morning to tell me that a drive failed and they are sending me another one, I like it. They have a tendency to do that."
"When it comes to a critical or a read-write-intensive application, it doesn't provide the performance that some applications require, especially for SAP. The SAP HANA database has a write-latency of less than 2 milliseconds and the CVO solution does not fit there. It could be used for other databases, where the requirements are not so demanding, especially when it comes to write-latency."
"I'm very happy with the solution, the only thing that needs improvement is the web services API. It could be a little bit more straightforward. That's my only issue with it. It can get pretty complex."
"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."
"I would like to see more aggressive management of the aggregate space. On the Cloud Volumes ONTAP that we use for offsite backup copies, most of the data sits in S3. There are also the EBS volumes on the Cloud Volumes ONTAP itself. Sometimes what happens is that the aggregate size just stays the same. If it allocates 8 terabytes initially, it just stays at 8 terabytes for a long time, even though we're only using 20 percent of that 8 terabytes. NetApp could undersize that more aggressively."
More Microsoft Azure Block Storage Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Block Storage is ranked 7th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 56 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 5th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 60 reviews. Microsoft Azure Block Storage is rated 8.0, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Block Storage writes "A stable and widely accepted solution". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Microsoft Azure Block Storage is most compared with Amazon EBS (Elastic Block Store), Rackspace Cloud Block Storage, Wasabi, Amazon S3 Glacier and Azure NetApp Files, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Google Cloud Storage and Portworx Enterprise. See our Microsoft Azure Block Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP 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.
