Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Azure NetApp Files vs NetApp Cloud Insights comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
8.9
IBM Turbonomic's customer service is praised for prompt, knowledgeable support and efficient issue resolution, maintaining high overall satisfaction.
No sentiment score available
Azure NetApp Files support is praised for responsiveness, though effectiveness varies, with some users relying on internal teams.
No sentiment score available
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
6.0
IBM Turbonomic needs an updated user interface, enhanced reporting, better documentation, and improved integration with third-party tools.
Sentiment score
4.2
Azure NetApp Files needs innovation, better versioning, cost optimization, simpler deployment, better support, and enhanced disaster recovery and replication.
No sentiment score available
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
IBM Turbonomic scales effectively, managing large environments and thousands of virtual machines with flexible licensing and strong support.
Sentiment score
7.4
Azure NetApp Files is highly rated for scalability, flexibility, automation, and minimal maintenance, with some size and availability concerns.
No sentiment score available
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
IBM Turbonomic offers flexible, cost-effective pricing, with significant savings over additional VMware hosts; negotiate for tailored deals.
No sentiment score available
Azure NetApp Files offers flexible pricing with pay-as-you-go and subscription models, but may seem expensive for small deployments.
No sentiment score available
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.7
IBM Turbonomic is highly stable, with minor issues quickly resolved, maintaining strong performance and reliable recovery from disruptions.
Sentiment score
7.9
Users highly rate Azure NetApp Files for its stability and reliability, consistently handling increased loads without issues during migrations.
No sentiment score available
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.2
IBM Turbonomic enhances IT efficiency through automation, resource optimization, workload management, integration, and efficient cost-performance balance.
Sentiment score
8.2
Azure NetApp Files provides flexible, secure, high-performance storage with fast provisioning, scaling, snapshots, SQL backups, and high availability.
No sentiment score available
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Turbonomic
Sponsored
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Management (4th), Virtualization Management Tools (3rd), Cloud Cost Management (1st)
Azure NetApp Files
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (3rd), Cloud Storage (8th), Public Cloud Storage Services (8th)
NetApp Cloud Insights
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (8th), IT Infrastructure Monitoring (23rd), Cloud Monitoring Software (20th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Cloud Migration category, the mindshare of IBM Turbonomic is 6.5%, up from 5.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure NetApp Files is 20.8%, down from 21.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Insights is 2.3%, down from 3.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Migration
 

Featured Reviews

SubashSubbiah - PeerSpot reviewer
It can tell us where performance is lagging on the hardware layer, but the reporting on the application layer is lacking
The automation area could be improved, and the generic reports are poor. We want more details in the analysis report from the application layer. The reports from the infrastructure layer are satisfactory, but Turbonomic won't provide much information if we dig down further than the application layer. I would like them to add some apps for physical device load resourcing and physical-to-virtual calculation. It gives excellent recommendations for the virtual layer but doesn't have the capabilities for physical-to-virtual analysis. Automated deployment is something else they could add. Some built-in automation features are helpful, but we aren't effectively using a few. We want a few more automated features, like autoscaling and automatic performance optimization testing would be useful.
We can expand our storage on-the-fly without the need to reprovision
Ease of provisioning: It's very easy to consume the product. We are not doing this manually. We are doing this programmatically, but it's very easy and seamless for us to consume it. It's like any other Azure component. It's very good and well-integrated into the ecosystem of Azure. There is tight integration. We didn't need to learn anything new. It feels like we know everything already, although under the hood, the product is something totally different. However, it seemed very easy for us. It's elastic, so it scales with our demands. We can start small, then with the addition of customer loads, we can expand on-the-fly without the need to reprovision something. The performance is quite good, so it's almost on par with the make of SSD storage. It provides a quick, scalable storage solution. We were looking for a supported solution. We didn't want to experiment. We didn't want to look for open source, though we did look into open source initially before we bumped into NetApp. We figured out that adding yet another unknown into our system was not going to bring us benefit. It would be another problem that we would need to tackle. So, we said, "Okay, let's look for a supported solution," and NetApp was one of them. Then, we turned to NetApp.
Scott Lauters - PeerSpot reviewer
It provides a single pane of glass, giving us visibility into the environment
All our production clusters are in Cloud Insight. It provides a single pane of glass, giving us visibility into the environment, which allows us to understand if any issues are going on across any of our clusters. The main issue we were looking to address was the lack of visibility across all the clusters in one single view. We're using Cloud Insight's Unified Manager. It has improved our ability to support and see the immediate status of the entire environment. If we have a critical incident, we can quickly see these issues and loop in monitoring teams and other teams. For example, if our app team thinks there are issues in the environment, we can quickly see if anything related to storage is part of the problem. It improved our organization by unifying all the various support teams. We all have the same view of what's happening in the environment. The dev team knows what storage is used or not, and we can quickly move on to other activities. Cloud Insights provides a single tool for containers and other cloud-based architectures, but we're not using some of those things, such as Kubernetes. We're primarily leveraging the monitoring and reporting. The solution does a great job of inventorying our resources. It allows us to put the tags on the devices. The process is fast. It also gives you the dependencies. I can dig down into all the related components. Cloud Insight's advanced analytics feature does a good job of highlighting the areas where there might be issues in the future.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
16%
Computer Software Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Government
5%
Educational Organization
33%
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Manufacturing Company
40%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Healthcare Company
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Turbonomic?
It offers different scenarios. It provides more capabilities than many other tools available. Typically, its price is...
What needs improvement with Turbonomic?
The implementation could be enhanced.
What is your primary use case for Turbonomic?
We use IBM Turbonomic to automate our cloud operations, including monitoring, consolidating dashboards, and reporting...
How does Azure NetApp Files compare to NetApp ONTAP?
Azure NetApp Files is a Microsoft Azure file storage service built on NetApp technology. The platform combines the fi...
What do you like most about Azure NetApp Files?
The availability is good, meaning downtime or network issues rarely occur. The system also offers flexibility, allowi...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Azure NetApp Files?
The solution's competitors like Oracle or Amazon are not cheap either. I think we're paying two million dollars for A...
What do you like most about NetApp Cloud Insights?
NetApp Cloud Insights helps with login monitoring and troubleshooting. Previously, if we had performance concerns or ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NetApp Cloud Insights?
The licensing is complex. The calculation depends on what you're ingesting. A terabyte of one product is not a teraby...
What needs improvement with NetApp Cloud Insights?
Ease of reporting is one thing that they're trying to tackle. If you have a specific set of data you want from Cloud ...
 

Also Known As

Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
NetApp ANF, ANF
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
SAP, Restaurant Magic
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Azure NetApp Files vs. NetApp Cloud Insights and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.