Top 10 Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Alternatives

4.2 out of 5

11 reviews
100% willing to recommend

325 followers

Top Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Google Cloud Storage, and Azure NetApp Files. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Amazon Web Services (AWS), and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP

4.4 out of 5

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP

4.4 out of 5

Amazon EFS is valued for its scalability and seamless AWS integration. In comparison, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP offers advanced data management and multi-protocol support, providing flexibility for complex needs. Amazon EFS is cost-effective and straightforward, while NetApp delivers extensive features despite higher costs and complexity.

Download Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Report

Pricing

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) has a straightforward setup cost while NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP includes additional complexities in initial setup expenses, highlighting key differences in setup requirements between the two solutions.

View comparison

Pricing

Google Cloud Storage

4.3 out of 5

Google Cloud Storage

4.3 out of 5

Google Cloud Storage is praised for its competitive pricing and ease of use. In comparison, Amazon EFS stands out due to its robust features and scalability, making it worth the higher cost. Additionally, Google Cloud Storage excels in simplicity, while Amazon EFS delivers superior scalability and performance.

Download Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Google Cloud Storage Report

Pricing

Google Cloud Storage has minimal setup costs, offering an affordable entry point, while Amazon EFS incurs higher setup charges, reflecting its more advanced integration and configuration options.

View comparison

Pricing

Google Cloud Storage has minimal setup costs, offering an affordable entry point, while Amazon EFS incurs higher setup charges, reflecting its more advanced integration and configuration options.

Azure NetApp Files

4.0 out of 5

Azure NetApp Files

4.0 out of 5

Azure NetApp Files is used for unstructured data, SQL backups, NFS and CIFS testing, virtualized SAP systems, Azure Virtual Desktop, user profiles, event collection, SAP HANA file storage, video data storage, and high IOPS in virtual desktop infrastructure. Users value flexibility, speed, integrated Active Directory, SnapMirror, and SnapLock.

Download Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Azure NetApp Files Report

Pricing

The licensing fees for this solution vary, ranging from a single shelf to a full suite.

The performance has improved by about 30 percent.

View comparison

Pricing

The licensing fees for this solution vary, ranging from a single shelf to a full suite.

The performance has improved by about 30 percent.

NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

4.7 out of 5

NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

4.7 out of 5

Amazon EFS excels in integration with AWS services and ease of use. In comparison, NetApp Cloud Volumes Service offers superior performance and scalability on Google Cloud. Tech buyers might choose Amazon EFS for simplicity within AWS, while NetApp Cloud Volumes Service is preferred for high-demand Google Cloud applications.

Download Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Report

Pricing

Amazon EFS has a simple setup, while NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud requires more initial configuration.

View comparison

Pricing

Amazon EFS has a simple setup, while NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud requires more initial configuration.

Related categories

Cloud Storage

File and Object Storage

Cloud Migration