We performed a comparison between Google Cloud Storage and NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It's simple to use."
"The performance is good."
"Its performance and security features are valuable."
"It is seamlessly integrated with your Android. There’s no fuss, no hassle."
"The most valuable feature of Google Cloud Storage is its ease of use. It fits well with our business use."
"Access your files from anywhere, no installation necessary"
"Some of the most valuable features are how convenient and easy to use this solution is. It's very user-friendly and meets all my requirements."
"There is a free-to-use version. This is the version I use."
"The good thing about NetApp is the features that are available on the cloud are also available on-premises."
"One thing I have noticed is that it is very simple to move the data where we need to move it, delete it, or archive it if we need to archive it to StorageGRID."
"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."
"The ability for our users to restore data from the Snapshots is very valuable."
"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."
"This solution has made everything easier to do."
"The most valuable features of this solution are SnapShot, FlexClone, and deduplication."
"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."
"The solution is good, however, it would benefit from increased storage without the additional cost."
"The user interface could be more intuitive."
"The implementation is not as easy as Microsoft, and the process could be improved."
"I am not sure about the reliability of the solution."
"I would like to see this solution made faster, cheaper, and bigger."
"The solution must provide some accessibility features."
"Google Cloud Storage could improve by being more user-friendly."
"Having more storage space would be an improvement."
"There is room for improvement with the capacity. There's a very hard limit to how many disks you can have and how much space you can have. That is something they should work to fix, because it's limiting. Right now, the limit is about 360 terabytes or 36 disks."
"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."
"It definitely needs improvement with respect to clustering and with respect to more collaborative integrations with Azure. Right now, we have very limited functionalities with Azure, except for storage. If CVO could be integrated with Azure that would help. When there is any sort of maintenance happening in the cloud, it disrupts the service in Cloud Volumes ONTAP."
"I think the challenge now is more in terms of keeping an air gap. The notion that it is in the cloud, easy to break, etc. The challenge now is mostly about the air gap and how we can protect that in the cloud."
"The solution could be better when we're connecting to our S3 side of the house. Right now, it doesn't see it, and I'm not sure why."
"How it handles erasure coding. I feel it the improvement should be there. Basically, it should be seamless. You don't want to have an underlying hardware issue or something, then suddenly there's no reads or writes. Luckily, it's at a replication site, so our main production site is still working and writing to it. But, the replication site has stopped right now while we try to bring that node back. Since we implemented in bare-metal, not in appliance, we had to go back to the original vendor. They didn't send it in time, and we had a hardware memory issue. Then, we had a hard disk issue, which brought the node down physically."
"The key feature, that we'd like to see in that is the ability to sync between regions within the AWS and Azure regions. We could use the cloud sync service, but we'd really like that native functionality within the cloud volume service."
"The solution is not stable when using single nodes. This is a problem. NetApp should work on this solution to make it more stable with HA nodes and resolve this issue."
Google Cloud Storage is ranked 2nd in Cloud Storage with 66 reviews while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is ranked 1st in Cloud Storage with 60 reviews. Google Cloud Storage is rated 8.8, while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Google Cloud Storage writes "Flexible, reliable, and beneficial for small sized companies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP writes "Its data tiering helps keep storage costs under control". Google Cloud Storage is most compared with Amazon S3 Glacier, AT&T Cloud Storage, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Microsoft Azure File Storage and Wasabi, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP is most compared with Azure NetApp Files, Amazon S3, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Red Hat Ceph Storage and Portworx Enterprise. See our Google Cloud Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP report.
See our list of best Cloud Storage vendors and best Public Cloud Storage Services vendors.
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.
