No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Nasuni vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 17, 2024

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

Nasuni
Ranking in Cloud Migration
8th
Ranking in Cloud Storage
14th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
37
Ranking in other categories
File System Software (3rd), NAS (14th), Cloud Backup (30th), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (20th), Cloud Storage Gateways (4th)
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Cloud Migration
24th
Ranking in Cloud Storage
19th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Public Cloud Storage Services (17th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Cloud Migration category, the mindshare of Nasuni is 5.2%, down from 7.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 2.7%, up from 1.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Migration Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Nasuni5.2%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud2.7%
Other92.1%
Cloud Migration
 

Featured Reviews

ShailenderSingh1 - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Unified cloud file storage has simplified global data management and reduced operational overhead
From an admin perspective, Nasuni has various valuable features. The GUI is very good, upgrading is very easy, and DFS is very easily manageable. Compared with other products, the snapshot feature is beneficial because it creates a snapshot every five minutes, allowing me to provide restores very easily to customers. Data protection is enhanced by the fact that Nasuni uses S3 technology to create snapshots every five minutes and enables versioning, so the snapshot is created and I can utilize that snapshot for disaster recovery or restore purposes. I assess the value of global file locking and caching for reducing latency as good, giving it a five out of five.
CC
Co-Founder at Atsign
Enables us to fine-tune storage and capacity on the fly as our needs grow or shrink over time
NetApp delivers High Availability. It's critical to our work. That was the main driver for using NetApp. We have a highly resilient service and if you have a highly resilient service, you are only as resilient as the least resilient part of your infrastructure. That's what we were having trouble with our file system before. It was becoming troublesome, so we needed to find something that was much more highly resilient so that's why we moved to NetApp. The complexity of moving large numbers of files to the cloud depends on what you're trying to do. But for us, it was really simple. I imagine for large enterprise customers it is probably pretty tricky. They're probably on all different technologies inside a large corporation and they may or may not have very large pipes going to them. So if you're in a data center to the cloud then it's going to be easy, but if you have hundreds of branches like if you're a bank and have lots of branch banks, they might have very small pipes out to the internet. It might take forever. In our use case everything's brand new files, so it was pretty trivial. We didn't migrate to the cloud, we were already on the cloud, so it was a nonissue for us. NetApp enables us to share data across VMs. It actually reduced the amount of data storage we need. We were having to have storage attached to each VM. And now we can aggregate that storage across multiple VMs, so that actually gave us a net reduction, which was a good thing. We switched from using block storage to file storage to share data between our VMs. It made it easier, frankly but I worry about the scalability in the future. For the moment it made life easier. We were using block and then we moved back to file with NetApp.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Nasuni has replaced multiple data silos and toolsets with a single, global file system."
"The most valuable feature is the storage in that it only keeps the last-used data locally, while everything else is backed up to the cloud. That way, we never really have to worry about file space in each office or the replication to the other file servers for DR."
"Snapshot backup is most valuable. It's quick and easy to use. It's controlled only by an administrator, which is very good. It takes 10 seconds to back up a spreadsheet of three or four megabytes."
"Nasuni has helped to replace multiple data silos with a single global file system, providing a single platform with a 360-degree view of our data so we can secure it properly, ensure resiliency, and maintain the visibility required for strict regulations like GDPR."
"We use Nasuni's continuous file versioning feature and it fully protects us. With the ability to version files and have continuous recovery, it helps in terms of resiliency. If we have an incident then we would be able to easily recover from it by using the technology."
"The most valuable feature is disaster recovery. We can fully recover a site in two hours."
"With a shift to more remote work during this past year, we deployed a new instance of Nasuni in Azure, which allowed us to be more flexible and support remote work better, something we wouldn't have been able to do with legacy file storage."
"A big advantage is having the data exist in the cloud, which has certainly relieved a lot of pressure from our IT department in regards to having a backup as well as preventing some ransomware in all of our offices."
"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."
"Storage was taking up maybe 10 to 20% of my life at the startup, and now it takes up zero."
"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."
"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."
"It is a good service for high availability that is very easy to configure."
"Overall, they have very impressive technologies."
 

Cons

"One area that we've recently spoken to Nasuni about is single sign-on. Another is integrating Nasuni with Azure Active Directory. In our particular case, that would allow for third-party consultants to access our Azure Active Directory environment as opposed to coming to our on-premises environment."
"If you need performance with less latency, you should go with another solution."
"Room for improvement would be the speed of replication of new files. I would also like to see cloud mirroring."
"Nasuni recently implemented a health system for filers. However, it needs better visibility because it lacks data and an explanation, or reasoning as to why a particular filer may be unhealthy."
"We can recover if data and a Filer are lost because of a possible ransomware event, but even that takes time to recover."
"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."
"There is some room for improvement when it comes to monitoring. We are not using Nasuni monitoring. We are using our own monitoring through Xenos. Nasuni can provide better monitoring capabilities for us to monitor all the filers and NMC so that we don't have to use a third-party tool."
"The privilege settings need to be more granular, and alerts are an excellent example. If a user doesn't have access to them, they can't see them and access information such as what they may have done wrong, what's there, and when the last sync happened. However, the ability to view alerts also comes with permission to delete them, which is not good, so we need more customization options here."
"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."
"The user interface has room for improvement."
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is fair. It's an enterprise-level solution so it's not inexpensive... The cost is pretty stable year over year."
"There are annual costs that we pay for maintaining all of the snapshot history in the cloud. That is the primary cost that we pay. We occasionally buy newer Nasuni appliances or deploy them to new offices when the need occurs. That capital equipment expenses is less than the cost of buying new file storage systems. For the most part, you are trading a CapEx cost of storage equipment for an OpEx cost for management of all the snapshot data in the cloud."
"There are cheaper forms of storage, but Nasuni is fairly priced for the functionality it offers. I can get basic file shares provisioned in Azure and pay for the storage and the CPU. The overall cost would be much less than Nasuni, but I would need to build the management console and encryption process, so it would cost a lot to develop that kind of functionality."
"I would not say it is economically priced, but it is affordable. If you can afford to pay for it, it is worth the money, but it is definitely not overpriced. It is priced about where it needs to be in the market. We were satisfied with the way they did their licensing and how they handled it. I believe they actually license by data size. It is based on how much data is being held on the machine and replicated, and that's completely understandable. So, for us, their pricing was as expected and affordable."
"The cost is based on the capacity, which is approximately $100 USD per terabyte."
"They could lower the cost, but it saves so much money when you go into it (by losing all the backup)."
"Nasuni pricing is average; it's not too high or too low."
"It is around $850 per terabyte per year. Any additional costs that you would incur are for the local caching devices that you'll need to access Nasuni. You kind of provide your own virtual machines or compute to access the data. You also pay for the object storage. So, there are three parts to it. There is the Nasuni license per terabyte. You would also pay for the actual object storage in the cloud, and then you would pay for virtual machines to access the storage."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
921,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Construction Company
8%
Computer Software Company
7%
Construction Company
20%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Comms Service Provider
14%
Computer Software Company
11%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise8
Large Enterprise26
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

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 solution where you'd usually need several programs. About the cost, there isn't a ...
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 definitely benefit from very quick times. I can't tell you if it's the best one because I...
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 get after an agreement with the company but in my organization's case, it is a ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

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

 

Sample Customers

American Standard, CBRE, Cushman & Wakefield, E*TRADE, Ithaca Energy, McLaren Construction, Morton Salt, Movado, Urban Outfitters, Western Digital
Atos, Bandwidth, Wuxi NextCode
Find out what your peers are saying about Nasuni vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
921,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.