We performed a comparison between Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) and Oracle Cloud Object Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp, Nasuni, Google and others in Cloud Storage."EFS is flexible."
"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."
"We are not that big of a cloud user. We just use it for the storage of our bytes. The most valuable aspect is the storage."
"Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."
"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."
"It could be better in connecting with Windows Server instances."
"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"The interface seems strange and complicated."
"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."
"Around 80 percent of the features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are available on Linux and not in Windows, making it a major drawback of the product."
"The user activity needs to be more connected."
"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"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."
"The solution should provide more customization and the possibility of doing more manual tasks."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in Cloud Storage with 9 reviews while Oracle Cloud Object Storage is ranked 15th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 3 reviews. Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is rated 8.6, while Oracle Cloud Object Storage is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) writes "Useful for storing details of projects and has an easy configuration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle Cloud Object Storage writes "A scalable solution that helps to store and share files securely ". Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, Google Cloud Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Amazon S3 Glacier and NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud, whereas Oracle Cloud Object Storage is most compared with Amazon S3, Microsoft Azure Object Storage, Oracle Database Backup Service, Google Cloud Storage and Amazon EBS (Elastic Block Store).
We monitor all Cloud 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.
