We performed a comparison between AWS Application Migration Service and NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Migration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product is reasonably priced."
"The most valuable feature is the live, block-to-block replication."
"Live Migration's best feature is that it's free."
"The CloudEndure feature is most valuable because it is user friendly and very simple."
"Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten...Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten...I rate the solution's support a ten out of ten."
"In terms of its storage snapshot efficiencies, the service is highly efficient. We are only doing things in small batches right now because we have not converted all of the data, but we have tested them in the Google Cloud and they work efficiently."
"Storage was taking up maybe 10 to 20% of my life at the startup, and now it takes up zero. I was personally running all the infrastructure for the company. Now that we've moved to NetApp, I don't have to worry about making sure it's up and running. It's made my life personally much better."
"High availability is very important to us because we have a production environment. High availability is the highest priority for us to continue keeping our systems running."
"We would like to have a disaster recovery feature included in this solution."
"I think it is important to have more logs, and more details would be great because we have just logged on the client's side, but there weren't many details on the cloud."
"One drawback to using CloudEndure is that the default is to give one small, lightweight server, which is created in the cloud."
"I do not see any improvements required for the CloudEndure."
"Live Migration has some issues with target setups."
"It would help if they increased the area in which they employ artificial intelligence, by starting to do assessments on the environments, to project those. They're not using any AI tools, currently, on the administrative side."
"The user interface has room for improvement. We would like this service to be more integrated with Azure, which is very easy to manage and use. It was easy to create volumes and add capacity pools in Azure, but in Google Cloud, we can only create separate volumes. We need more management or configuration options in the user interface."
"I would like for the sales team to get in contact more often and let me know what I should be doing next, what we should be doing about new features. So it would be nice if I heard a little bit more from him. From a technology perspective, I have no complaints."
More AWS Application Migration Service Pricing and Cost Advice →
More NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
AWS Application Migration Service is ranked 8th in Cloud Migration with 5 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is ranked 13th in Cloud Migration. AWS Application Migration Service is rated 8.2, while NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of AWS Application Migration Service writes "Well priced, easy to expand, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud writes "Enables us to fine-tune storage and capacity on the fly as our needs grow or shrink over time". AWS Application Migration Service is most compared with Zerto and Carbonite Migrate, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is most compared with NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP and Amazon EFS (Elastic File System). See our AWS Application Migration Service vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud report.
See our list of best Cloud Migration vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Migration 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.
