Azure NetApp Files vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
NetApp Logo
2,377 views|1,523 comparisons
93% willing to recommend
IBM Logo
958 views|433 comparisons
98% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Azure NetApp Files and IBM Turbonomic 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.
To learn more, read our detailed Azure NetApp Files vs. IBM Turbonomic Report (Updated: May 2024).
772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Since we have NetApp's internally, we use the SnapMirror predominantly for this process in the cloud which is beneficial.""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.""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.""The availability is good, meaning downtime or network issues rarely occur. The system also offers flexibility, allowing for increases in data volume, IOPS, and other capabilities without requiring downtime, which is a strong point. Based on the money spent, we can get performance improvements and high availability.""The critical features of this solution are SnapMirror for replication, data protection, and SnapLock.""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.""Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."

More Azure NetApp Files Pros →

"The recommendation of the family types is a huge help because it has saved us a lot of money. We use it primarily for that. Another thing that Turbonomic provides us with is a single platform that manages the full application stack and that's something I really like.""We've saved hundreds of hours. Most of the time those hours would have to be after hours as well, which are more valuable to me as that's my personal time.""The automation and orchestration components are definitely the best part, as you can tell it what it can do and when, and just let it be.""In our organization, optimizing application performance is a continuous process that is beyond human scale. We would not be able to do the number of actions that Turbonomic takes on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. It is humanly impossible with the little micro adjustments that it can make. That is a huge differentiator. If you just figure each action could take anywhere very conservatively from five to 10 minutes to act upon, then you multiply that out by thousands of actions every month, it is easily something where you could say, "I am saving a couple of FTEs."""It has automated a lot of things. We have saved 30 to 35 percent in human resource time and cost, which is pretty substantial. We don't have a big workforce here, so we have to use all the automation we can get.""We have VM placement in Automated mode and currently have all other metrics in Recommend mode.""Turbonomic has helped optimize cloud operations and reduced our cloud costs significantly. Overall, we are at about 40 percent savings, and we spend about three million a year just in Azure. It reduces the size of the VMs, putting them into the right template for usage. People don't realize that you don't have to future-proof a virtual machine in Azure. You just need to build it for today. As the business or service grows, you can scale up or out. About 90 percent of all the costs that we've reduced has been from sizing machines appropriately.""It also brings up a list of machines and if something is under-provisioned and needs more compute power it will tell you, 'This server needs more compute power, and we suggest you raise it up to this level.' It will even automatically do it for you. In Azure, you don't have to actually go into the cloud provider to resize. You can just say, 'Apply these resizes,' and Turbonomic uses some back-end APIs to make the changes for you."

More IBM Turbonomic Pros →

Cons
"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.""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 were looking for a clustered solution that has over-complicated things because we had it in AWS, which is Amazon. There was a solution for clustered NetApp. That meant there would be two NetApps that were not clustered because there was no solution for a cluster. We would like there to be an HA cluster solution.""Azure NetApp Files is expensive.""This solution would be improved with more innovation.""Reserved Instances for Azure NetApp Files would improve more use cases, making them more valuable in Azure as the cost would be reduced.""The solution needs to improve it's ABS environment.""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."

More Azure NetApp Files Cons →

"It would be nice for them to have a way to do something with physical machines, but I know that is not their strength Thankfully, the majority of our environment is virtual, but it would be nice to see this type of technology across some other platforms. It would be nice to have capacity planning across physical machines.""They have a long road map when we ask for certain things that will make the product better. It takes time, but that's understandable because there are other things that are higher on the priority list.""Remove the need for special in-house knowledge and development.""We don't use Turbonomic for FinOps and part of the reason is its cost reporting. The reporting could be much more robust and, if that were the case, I could pitch it for FinOps.""The management interface seems to be designed for high-resolution screens. Somebody with a smaller-resolution screen might not like the web interface. I run a 4K monitor on it, so everything fits on the screen. With a lower resolution like 1080, you need to scroll a lot. Everything is in smaller windows. It doesn't seem to be designed for smaller screens.""Turbonomic can modernize the look and feel, making it more user-friendly to access and obtain information.""It sometimes does get false positives. Sometimes, it'll move something when it really wasn't a performance metric. I've seen it do that, but it's pretty much an automated tool for performance. We've only got about 500 virtual machines, so lots of times, I'm able to manage it physically, but it's definitely a nice tool for a larger enterprise that might be managing 2,000 or 3,000 virtual machines.""I would love to see Turbonomic analyze backup data. We have had people in the past put servers into daily full backups with seven-year retention and where the disk size is two terabytes. So, every single day, there is a two terabyte snapshot put into a Blob somewhere. I would love to see Turbonomic say, "Here are all your backups along with the age of them," to help us manage the savings by not having us spend so much on the storage in Azure. That would be huge."

More IBM Turbonomic Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The solution’s combination of the ease of use, simplicity, and reduction in IT management versus the cost has helped a lot. It is very fast to deploy. It's very easy to maintain. You don't have to do a lot in the cloud to maintain this thing, so it gives good performance. It's fast to deploy, easy to maintain, and it gives a better performance. These are the most basic three criteria for any application. This saves cost because the manpower you need to deploy is going down. You're getting better performance and not buying new resources. You have resources available in the cloud. It's just a couple of clicks, then you're good to go."
  • "The performance has improved by about 30 percent."
  • "The licensing fees for this solution vary, ranging from a single shelf to a full suite."
  • "Our pricing has not been determined because we are still waiting on additional features."
  • "It is expensive in small environments, which could be better. The reason is the four terabyte minimum. A one terabyte minimum would be better."
  • "We are currently on a pay-as-you-go model with the storage that we use."
  • "Its price is double the price of the premium disks, which is the main reason why customers don't go for this solution in the end."
  • "The price of Azure NetApp Files could be better."
  • More Azure NetApp Files Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "We felt the pricing was very fair for the product. It is in no way prohibitive for larger deployments, unlike other similar product on the market."
  • "Contact the Turbonomic sales team, explain your needs and what you're looking to monitor. They will get a pre-sales SE on the phone and together work up a very accurate quote."
  • "What I can advise is to trial the product, taking advantage of the Turbonomic pre-sales implemention support and kickstart training."
  • "Licensing is per socket, so load up on the cores rather than a lot of lower core CPUs."
  • "You should understand the cost of your physical servers and how much time and money you are spending year over year on expanding your virtual farm."
  • "Price is a big one. VMTurbo was very competitively priced."
  • "If you're a super-small business, it may be a little bit pricey for you... But in large, enterprise companies where money is, maybe, less of an issue, Turbonomic is not that expensive. I can't imagine why any big company would not buy it, for what it does."
  • "It was an annual buy-in. You basically purchase it based on your host type stuff. The buy-in was about 20K, and the annual maintenance is about $3,000 a year."
  • More IBM Turbonomic Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
    772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Azure NetApp Files is a Microsoft Azure file storage service built on NetApp technology. The platform combines the file capabilities of Azure and NetApp to move critical file-based applications to the… more »
    Top Answer:The availability is good, meaning downtime or network issues rarely occur. The system also offers flexibility, allowing for increases in data volume, IOPS, and other capabilities without requiring… more »
    Top Answer:In the cloud, pricing depends on how you manage it. It's not necessarily cheap, but it's all about optimizing charges and showing the cost back. So, it's more about managing the expenses rather than… more »
    Top Answer:I have not seen Turbonomic's new pricing since IBM purchased it. When we were looking at it in my previous company before IBM's purchase, it was compatible with other tools.
    Top Answer:I would like Turbonomic to add more services, especially in the cloud area. I have already told them this. They can add Azure NetApp Files. They can add Azure Blob storage. They have already added… more »
    Top Answer:I mostly provide it to my clients. There are multiple reasons why they would use it depending on the client's needs and their solution.
    Ranking
    3rd
    out of 38 in Cloud Migration
    Views
    2,377
    Comparisons
    1,523
    Reviews
    3
    Average Words per Review
    585
    Rating
    8.0
    5th
    out of 38 in Cloud Migration
    Views
    958
    Comparisons
    433
    Reviews
    14
    Average Words per Review
    1,360
    Rating
    8.4
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    NetApp ANF, ANF
    Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
    Learn More
    IBM
    Video Not Available
    Interactive Demo
    NetApp
    Demo Not Available
    Overview

    Extreme File Performance
    Azure NetApp Files allows you to target any of your business-critical file workloads with extreme file throughput with sub-millisecond response times.With three service levels you can change on-the-fly, you get the performance that’s best suited to the application.

    Simple, Seamless Experience
    A seamless Azure experience for your file services workloads. You can deploy and manage Azure NetApp Files directory from the Azure Portal or automate using the Azure API or CLI integration.

    Secure Your Data
    Built-in capabilities ensure your data is protected at all times in Azure: from always-on encryption to point-in-time data copies (without added capacity costs). And with Microsoft‘s world class support, you can rest assured that you‘re in good hands with Azure.

    IBM Turbonomic is a performance and cost optimization platform for public, private, and hybrid clouds used by customers to assure application performance while eliminating inefficiencies by dynamically resourcing applications through automated actions. Common use cases include cloud cost optimization, cloud migration planning, data center modernization, FinOps acceleration, Kubernetes optimization, sustainable IT, and application resource management. Turbonomic customers report an average 33% reduction in cloud and infrastructure waste without impacting application performance, and return-on-investment of 471% over three years. Ready to take a closer look? Explore the interactive demo or start your free 30-day trial today!

    Sample Customers
    SAP, Restaurant Magic
    IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company25%
    Retailer17%
    Government8%
    Healthcare Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization27%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Computer Software Company9%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    REVIEWERS
    Healthcare Company13%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company18%
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Insurance Company6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise67%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business14%
    Midsize Enterprise35%
    Large Enterprise52%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business17%
    Midsize Enterprise23%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise71%
    Buyer's Guide
    Azure NetApp Files vs. IBM Turbonomic
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Azure NetApp Files vs. IBM Turbonomic and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
    772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Azure NetApp Files is ranked 3rd in Cloud Migration with 15 reviews while IBM Turbonomic is ranked 5th in Cloud Migration with 204 reviews. Azure NetApp Files is rated 8.2, while IBM Turbonomic is rated 8.8. 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 IBM Turbonomic writes "The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them ". Azure NetApp Files is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Nasuni and Wasabi, whereas IBM Turbonomic is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, Azure Cost Management, Cisco Intersight, VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth and VMware vSphere. See our Azure NetApp Files vs. IBM Turbonomic 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.