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

CTERA Enterprise File Services Platform vs Nasuni comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on May 18, 2024

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.
Sentiment score
8.4
CTERA's customer support is highly rated for its responsiveness and effectiveness in addressing urgent issues and engaging with clients.
No sentiment score available
High-priority issues are handled promptly.
 

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
5.8
CTERA Enterprise File Services should enhance user experience, optimize updates, manage devices globally, and improve administration and legacy support.
No sentiment score available
Compared to where we started, they've made significant improvements in the last five years.
 

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
8.2
The CTERA platform is scalable and adaptable, though licensing models raise concerns about scalability for CPU and memory upgrades.
No sentiment score available
If we need to upgrade CPU and memory, we should be able to do that without a license upgrade.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
IBM Turbonomic offers flexible, cost-effective pricing, with significant savings over additional VMware hosts; negotiate for tailored deals.
Sentiment score
6.0
CTERA offers cost-effective enterprise file services, competitive against EMC, Nasuni, NetApp, and beneficial in Total Cost of Ownership.
No sentiment score available
CTERA's pricing seems to be on par with some of the other players, such as Nasuni and Azure.
 

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
8.5
The CTERA Enterprise File Services Platform boasts excellent stability, minimal downtime, and high user satisfaction with reliable data access.
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
8.0
CTERA Enterprise Platform provides scalable, flexible data management with easy infrastructure expansion, seamless backup, and adaptable resilience across hardware.
No sentiment score available
As soon as something is written to the device, CTERA copies it to the cloud, where it's versioned with snapshots so we can recover it.
 

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)
CTERA Enterprise File Servi...
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
5
Ranking in other categories
File System Software (5th), NAS (11th), Cloud Migration (9th), Cloud Storage (13th), Cloud Backup (18th), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (14th), Cloud Storage Gateways (4th), Content Collaboration Platforms (14th)
Nasuni
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
File System Software (1st), NAS (5th), Cloud Migration (2nd), Cloud Storage (3rd), Cloud Backup (8th), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (8th), Cloud Storage Gateways (1st)
 

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.
Igal Muginstein - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers flexibility, fast performance, and ransomware protection
The platform is releasing new features at a fast pace, which sometimes leads to version updates every three to six months. Although updates are generally not complex, it is challenging to stop the production environment during these updates, even if the downtime is just a few minutes. This is a common challenge across all NAS providers. From my perspective, the most important area for improvement is developing a method to perform updates without affecting customer production environments. Additionally, there are some cache size limitations that might become problematic for future use cases, though they don’t impact current applications. Collaboration for NFS and SMB protocols could also be enhanced. Although this issue isn't specific to CTERA, it is something we are working on together to improve. The quality of the versions has improved, but occasional issues still arise. All solutions face this challenge, but we hope to see a continued reduction in the number of bugs. That said, we haven't had any major production problems in the last four years, and we appreciate how responsive CTERA is to our issues. We engage in brainstorming sessions together, and we value this relationship.
Greg Robson - PeerSpot reviewer
We have less downtime and fewer trouble tickets from users who cannot access their shared files
Nasuni provides enough reporting to see what's happening. You can see the number of shares, total volume, issues, conflicts, etc., but it doesn't provide much visibility from a content perspective. For example, it doesn't tell you the data age. When you're trying to sort and filter information, the data creation date is a critical factor. Nasuni doesn't give you that. You can't get a count of all the file types, like the number of PDFs, Word docs, and PPT files. It lacks some content reporting. Then again, it's doing what it is designed to do. Nasuni provides a management console that lets you do specific functions, and it does those well. However, they haven't tried to include functionality that would be useful to people who want to manage the information at a global level. We have to use another tool for that, but it isn't expensive. We run scripts that take a month or more to complete because we have a lot of data. It's taking us a long time to get more detailed information on what is in there. It would be handy if Nasuni offered built-in features for reporting on data ages and file types.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Storage Gateways 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%
Healthcare Company
5%
Computer Software Company
64%
Financial Services Firm
5%
University
4%
Educational Organization
3%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Construction Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

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...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for CTERA Enterprise File Services Platform?
I would rate it a six out of ten for pricing. It is fairly priced. I am not too involved in the pricing of what we us...
What needs improvement with CTERA Enterprise File Services Platform?
We have one of the early systems because we were early adopters. The new Edge filer that they have comes with a lot m...
What is your primary use case for CTERA Enterprise File Services Platform?
The primary use case is production data storage. Our live projects get stored on the filers.
Does Nasuni have a good pricing model?
Based on the experience of my organization, Nasuni is definitely worth the money, since it gives you an all-in-one so...
Is it easy to restore files with Nasuni?
As someone who has used this feature of Nasuni I can tell you - yes, it's good for file recovery and you'll definitel...
What features and services does Nasuni offer?
Hi, if you pick Nasuni, you'll be benefiting from many services for a good price. Well, it's a personalized price you...
 

Also Known As

Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
No data available
No data available
 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Interactive Demo

Demo not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
McDonald's, WPP, US Navy, Gore, Festo, Stryker, Bezeq, PERI
American Standard, CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, E*TRADE, Ithaca Energy, McLaren Construction, Morton Salt, Movado, Urban Outfitters, Western Digital
Find out what your peers are saying about CTERA Enterprise File Services Platform vs. Nasuni and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.