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

Nasuni vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud comparison

Sponsored
 

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:
 

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
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.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud needs better documentation, transparent pricing, high-availability support, smoother integration, and consistent performance.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
8.0
IBM Turbonomic scales effectively, managing large environments and thousands of virtual machines with flexible licensing and strong support.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is praised for efficient, flexible scaling and consistent performance with dynamic storage needs.
 

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
No sentiment score available
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud provides flexible, predictable pricing with various performance tiers to optimize business spending.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.7
IBM Turbonomic is highly stable, with minor issues quickly resolved, maintaining strong performance and reliable recovery from disruptions.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
Users find NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud stable, reliable, highly available, and capable of handling substantial workloads without issue.
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.2
IBM Turbonomic enhances IT efficiency through automation, resource optimization, workload management, integration, and efficient cost-performance balance.
No sentiment score available
No sentiment score available
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud excels in management, integration, performance, data protection, scalability, pricing, and support.
 

Categories and Ranking

IBM Turbonomic
Sponsored
Ranking in Cloud Migration
5th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
205
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Management (4th), Virtualization Management Tools (3rd), Cloud Analytics (1st), Cloud Cost Management (1st)
Nasuni
Ranking in Cloud Migration
2nd
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
35
Ranking in other categories
File System Software (1st), NAS (5th), Cloud Storage (3rd), Cloud Backup (8th), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (8th), Cloud Storage Gateways (1st)
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Cloud Migration
14th
Average Rating
9.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Storage (16th), Public Cloud Storage Services (19th)
 

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 Nasuni is 9.4%, up from 6.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 3.0%, down from 4.3% 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.
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.
CC
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.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
816,636 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%
Computer Software Company
19%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Construction Company
7%
Educational Organization
60%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
5%
 

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...
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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
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
 

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.
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: October 2024.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.