We performed a comparison between Microsoft Azure Object 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."With Microsoft Azure Object Storage, they are an open market."
"The solution offers good documentation."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is an easy-to-use and stable solution."
"The most important thing for me is reliability."
"The most valuable feature is the cost value, which is very important for long term retention."
"The layout of Microsoft is professional."
"The file retention and object retention have been most valuable."
"The tool's most valuable feature is performance."
"So a lot of these licenses are at the rate that is required for capacity. So they're they're able to reduce the license consumption and also the consumption of the underlying cloud storage."
"With NetApp, you can integrate malware scanning or malware protection. This is something valuable that is not offered in SaaS solutions typically."
"It makes sure we have control of the data and that we know what it's being used for. The main thing for us is that we need to know what applications are consuming it and responsible for it. The solution helps us do that."
"This solution has made everything easier to do."
"The fast recovery time objective with the ability to bring the environment back to production in case something happens."
"It offers ease of use and a comprehensive suite of applications, including features like SnapMirror, SnapVault, and unified snapshot management, all bundled into a single product."
"We use the mirroring to mirror our volumes to our DR location. We also create snapshots for backups. Snapshots will create a specified snapshot to be able to do a DR test without disrupting our standard mirrors. That means we can create a point-in-time snapshot, then use the ability of FlexClones to make a writeable volume to test with, and then blow it away after the DR test."
"The storage tiering is definitely the most valuable feature... With respect to tiering, the inactive data is pushed to a lower tier where the storage cost is cheap, but the access cost is high."
"They could improve AI and ML-based modules. They should add more modules based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. Pricing is a little bit tricky with Microsoft Azure. They do provide the estimates, but it is not easy to guess the exact amount that we will be billed after a month or two because it is based on usage. This is a little confusing."
"The initial setup is not easy to understand."
"The pricing of the solution can be improved."
"A more comprehensive training option is needed."
"We would like it if we did not have to use another encryption solution to encrypt the storage."
"The cost of support is always expensive."
"If we look at the different versions of that ADLS, it really does not have a hierarchical storage mechanism."
"The solution's stability should be improved."
"The DR has room for improvement. For example, we now have NetApp in Western Europe and we would like to back up the information to another region. It's impossible. We need to bring up an additional NetApp in that other region and create a Cloud Manager automation to copy the data... I would prefer it to be a more integrated solution like it was in the NetApp solution about a year ago. I would like to see something like AltaVault but in the cloud."
"If they could include clustering together multiple physical Cloud Volumes ONTAP devices as an option, that could be helpful."
"We are getting a warning alert about not being able to connect to Cloud Manager when we log into it. The support has provided links, but this particular issue is not fixed yet."
"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."
"Their support and development teams can collaborate better to resolve an issue."
"The support is good in general but the initial, front-line support could be improved. Because I have already been using the product for so long, when I call support I would rather talk to somebody who is a little bit more advanced or senior, rather than talking to the first-level support. Usually, it takes some time to reach out to their senior support."
"It would be fantastic if NetApp could offer a solution that's as user-friendly as Google Drive for seamless cloud storage integration."
More Microsoft Azure Object Storage Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Azure Object Storage is ranked 10th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 43 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 6th in Public Cloud Storage Services with 60 reviews. Microsoft Azure Object Storage is rated 8.0, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Azure Object Storage writes "Easy to query, offers great security, and integrates well with other Microsoft applications". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Microsoft Azure Object Storage is most compared with Oracle Cloud Object Storage, Wasabi, Amazon S3 and Nutanix Unified Storage, 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 Object 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.
