Google Cloud Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud comparison

Google and NetApp are both solutions in the Cloud Storage category. Google is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.8, while NetApp is ranked #17. Google holds a 9.5% mindshare in CS, compared to NetApp’s 1.8% mindshare. Additionally, 97% of Google users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of NetApp users who would recommend it.

Google Cloud Storage

Read 77 Google Cloud Storage reviews

2,268 Views
1,433 Comparison Views

97% willing to recommend

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Read 3 NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud reviews

593 Views
313 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Google Cloud Storage

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 17, 2024

Google Cloud Storage and NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud offer competing cloud storage solutions. Users find Google Cloud Storage more satisfying in terms of cost and support, while NetApp Cloud Volumes Service stands out for its advanced features, making it appear worth the higher price according to user reviews.

Features: Google Cloud Storage is appreciated for its high reliability and integration capabilities. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service is valued for its performance and data management features. Hence, NetApp Cloud Volumes Service has an edge due to its specialized capabilities.

Room for Improvement: Users suggest that Google Cloud Storage could improve its performance consistency and provide more robust security features. For NetApp Cloud Volumes Service, the main areas of improvement include better documentation and enhanced simplicity in operations. Google Cloud Storage shows weakness in performance, whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes Service could benefit from operational simplicity.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Google Cloud Storage is noted for its straightforward deployment but has mixed reviews concerning customer service. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service is praised for its seamless deployment process and superior customer service. Thus, NetApp Cloud Volumes Service is regarded as better in both deployment and customer service aspects.

Pricing and ROI: Google Cloud Storage is generally considered more cost-effective with satisfactory ROI. In comparison, NetApp Cloud Volumes Service is viewed as more expensive but justifies the higher cost with better ROI due to its advanced features. Google Cloud Storage is preferable for budget-conscious users, while NetApp Cloud Volumes Service is favored for its higher ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Google Cloud Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Report (Updated: February 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Google Cloud Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

February 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 837,501 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

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

Categories and Ranking

Google Cloud Storage

Ranking in Cloud Storage

2nd

Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services

3rd

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.3

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Ranking in Cloud Storage

17th

Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services

18th

Average Rating

9.4

Reviews Sentiment

8.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Cloud Migration (16th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2025, in the Cloud Storage category, the mindshare of Google Cloud Storage is 9.5%, down from 12.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 1.8%, down from 3.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Cloud Storage

Featured Reviews

Naresh Kumar

Founder & Director at Hiindsight Group

Offers great reliability to users

Protection is an area in the product where improvements are required. If big companies want to use the tool for protection purposes, like security, which is a big thing people are looking for nowadays. Sometimes, the tool's user interface automatically puts all the files in a different place, making it a bit difficult to go deep and figure out in which folder a file is present. I need to search for a file and drill down to be able to find it. There are a few bugs in the tool, as with all content management tools, since the solution is usually used to deal with huge amounts of content. If the flow of the documents is huge, the tool might get slow for the end users, or when the data is being migrated or imported into the tools.

Read full review

John Wheeler

President/COO at ChartDoc

Tools and dashboard enable us to view our peak loads and to tune the system as we go, reducing costs

Confidential Computing is really the key for us because of the security requirements for HIPAA compliance. With HIPAA compliance, there are policies and rules in place on the ability to look at a patient's data. There are rules around security, encryption, and decryption on any part of that data. When you put in the data, it is encrypted when it goes to storage, and when you pull the data back, it has to be decrypted. And you have to have two-phase authentication built into that. The Confidential Computing adds another layer of security to the storage infrastructure, which is pretty slick stuff. The NetApp service's high availability is very important when it comes to upscale and downscale. Our system is a digital system so it requires immediate response for telemedicine. When your patients are going through a telemedicine session, you need the video to work properly and respond in a timely manner, and the doctors are actually taking notes regarding that specific patient session. In terms of its storage snapshot efficiencies, the service is highly efficient. We are only doing things in small batches right now because we have not converted all of the data, but we have tested them in the Google Cloud and they work efficiently.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature of Google Cloud Storage is that I can link with my PC."

"The most valuable features of Google Cloud Storage include easy API integration for querying, downloading, and uploading files."

"The combination of Firebase features, including storage, the Firebase database, and authentication, has been the most valuable. Firebase offers Google authentication, which is convenient for our needs. Additionally, Firebase provides email authentication and Gmail authentication, which are easy to set up and integrate into our applications."

"The performance is good."

"It is seamlessly integrated with your Android. There’s no fuss, no hassle."

"It's easy to use."

"Google Cloud Storage's most valuable feature is the native algorithms are available. Some of the algorithms are not available for the use cases that we had in Microsoft Azure. We didn't find any native algorithms and that's the reason why we decided to use the machine learning algorithms in GCP."

"The solution is already stable and I have not encountered problems in this regard."

More Google Cloud Storage pros

"In terms of its storage snapshot efficiencies, the service is highly efficient. We are only doing things in small batches right now because we have not converted all of the data, but we have tested them in the Google Cloud and they work efficiently."

"Storage was taking up maybe 10 to 20% of my life at the startup, and now it takes up zero. I was personally running all the infrastructure for the company. Now that we've moved to NetApp, I don't have to worry about making sure it's up and running. It's made my life personally much better."

"High availability is very important to us because we have a production environment. High availability is the highest priority for us to continue keeping our systems running."

Cons

"Its security should be better from the data security point of view. It should be more secure, and it should get tightly integrated with products such as Google Docs and Google Sheets. Microsoft covers different kinds of tools such as Microsoft Office, Microsoft Word, and Microsoft Excel."

"The licensing fees could be reduced."

"It's actually quite complete and we don't have any issues with the solution."

"There are inefficiencies with cache when the names are sequencing."

"Google Cloud Storage is scalable, but you have to pay extra."

"The user experience needs to be simplified."

"I want the product to be available at a cheaper cost."

"The solution should have two factor authentication."

More Google Cloud Storage cons

"The user interface has room for improvement. We would like this service to be more integrated with Azure, which is very easy to manage and use. It was easy to create volumes and add capacity pools in Azure, but in Google Cloud, we can only create separate volumes. We need more management or configuration options in the user interface."

"I would like for the sales team to get in contact more often and let me know what I should be doing next, what we should be doing about new features. So it would be nice if I heard a little bit more from him. From a technology perspective, I have no complaints."

"It would help if they increased the area in which they employ artificial intelligence, by starting to do assessments on the environments, to project those. They're not using any AI tools, currently, on the administrative side."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is free."

"The solution was very cheap compared to other products."

"Approximately 800 to 1,000 USD is paid towards the licensing costs of the solution. The solution is neither expensive nor cheap, meaning it is moderately priced. There are no extra costs apart from the licensing costs of the solution."

"If you're ready to pay, they're ready to give you as much storage as you want. Considering the features that Google Cloud Storage provides, the pricing is reasonable. So far, I'm still using the free service from them because I'm able to meet my requirements with the free subscription. Maybe, in the future, if a storage requirement comes, I'll pay for it or go for the license."

"I use the free version and have never paid for any extra storage. I have been able to manage in whatever free spaces are given."

"The solution is very cheap."

"They know that the pricing is comparable with Azure, AWS, and those other solutions like Amazon are cheaper, but they are not as flexible."

"We do not have to pay for a license for Google Cloud Storage but there is a subscription that needs to be paid."

More Google Cloud Storage pricing and cost advice

"We don't need so much space, and there is no option to pay as we go or use just what we need. Also, the only way to increase performance is by increasing the level of the service."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Storage solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

837,501 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

74%

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Educational Organization

64%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

Financial Services Firm

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Google Cloud Storage?

It is flexible and simple to use.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Google Cloud Storage?

Depending on your setup, Google Cloud Storage is economical, especially if you do not need high stability and scalability. We use it for backup, so the storage that is not used often is affordable.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Google Cloud Storage?

So far, when it comes to security, it meets our needs and requirements, so I have nothing to say about improvements to their services. I do not find any areas needing improvement currently.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Amazon S3 Glacier vs Google Cloud Storage

Compared 21% of the time

AT&T Cloud Storage vs Google Cloud Storage

Compared 21% of the time

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs Google Cloud Storage

Compared 10% of the time

Amazon S3 vs Google Cloud Storage

Compared 10% of the time

Akamai NetStorage vs Google Cloud Storage

Compared 1% of the time

More Google Cloud Storage Competitors

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Compared 35% of the time

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

Compared 33% of the time

More NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Google Cloud Storage

February 2025

Download Google Cloud Storage product report

Buyer's Guide

NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

February 2025

NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud report

Download NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud product report

Also Known As

No data available

CVS for Google Cloud, NetApp CVS for Google Cloud, Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud, Cloud Volumes Service for GCP, NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for GCP

Overview

Google Cloud Storage is praised for its fast performance, seamless integration, high security, and scalability. Users store and access large amounts of data easily, backup files, host websites, and collaborate on projects. The platform's reliability and cost-effectiveness make it a top choice for data storage and management.

Google

NetApp^® Cloud Volumes for Google Cloud is a fully managed or self-managed file service that is integrated into Google Cloud with the multiprotocol support, performance, and availability required to run business-critical applications. It is designed to provide massively parallel shared access to thousands of Google Compute Engine and Google Kubernetes Engine instances, enabling your applications to achieve high levels of aggregate throughput and IOPS with consistent low latencies.

Use cases. Customers can use the service to migrate existing enterprise applications to Google Cloud. Other use cases include hybrid deployments, multicloud mobility, big data analytics, web serving and content management, application development and testing, media and entertainment workflows, database backups, container storage, and more.

Features. Multiple performance tiers, standard file interfaces, advanced data management, metered service, fully managed service, native service experience, integrated support, and integrated billing.

For more information:

NetApp: https://cloud.netapp.com/cloud-volumes-service-for-gcp

Google: https://cloud.google.com/netapp

NetApp

Sample Customers

1. Adobe 2. Airbnb 3. Amazon 4. Apple 5. AT&T 6. Baidu 7. Cisco 8. Coca-Cola 9. Dell 10. eBay 11. Facebook 12. Ford 13. Google 13. HP 14. IBM 15. Intel 16. JPMorgan Chase 17. LinkedIn 18. Lyft 19. Microsoft 20. Netflix 21. Nike 22. Oracle 23. PayPal 24. Pinterest 25. Qualcomm 26. SAP 27. Spotify 28. Tesla 29. Toyota 30. Twitter 31. Visa 32. Walmart 33. WeWork

Atos, Bandwidth, Wuxi NextCode

Buyer's Guide

Google Cloud Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

February 2025

Free Report: Google Cloud Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Find out what your peers are saying about Google Cloud Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud and other solutions. Updated: February 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

837,501 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Google Cloud Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud 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.