Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo

Top 10 Microsoft Azure File Storage Alternatives

Vendor: Microsoft
4.1 out of 5
Badge Leader
Leave a review

Top Microsoft Azure File Storage Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Microsoft Azure File Storage based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS), and Amazon S3 Glacier. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions. Microsoft Azure File Storage surpasses its competitors by offering high scalability, seamless integration with on-premises workloads, and robust security features, ensuring efficient and secure cloud-based file sharing and storage solutions for organizations of all sizes.

Microsoft Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Microsoft, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Get the alternatives report
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP
4.4 out of 5

Microsoft Azure File Storage provides seamless integration with Azure services, strong security, and scalability. In comparison, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP offers advanced data management, efficient storage utilization, and robust backups. Microsoft Azure often appeals for cost-effectiveness, while NetApp attracts those needing complex storage solutions.

Download Microsoft Azure File Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP Report
Microsoft Azure File Storage has a lower initial setup cost whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP tends to be more expensive initially but offers more robust features.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Azure File Storage has a lower initial setup cost whereas NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP tends to be more expensive initially but offers more robust features.
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS)
4.4 out of 5
Microsoft Azure File Storage excels in customer support and straightforward deployment, making it a cost-effective choice for organizations with tight budgets. In comparison, Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) offers comprehensive features, robust data protection, and multi-cloud capabilities, making it suitable for enterprises seeking advanced functionalities.
Download Microsoft Azure File Storage vs. Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) Report
Microsoft Azure File Storage has a straightforward setup cost, while Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) may involve a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Azure File Storage has a straightforward setup cost, while Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) may involve a higher initial investment.
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Amazon S3 Glacier
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Amazon S3 Glacier
4.3 out of 5
Amazon S3 Glacier excels in cold data storage efficiency and cost-effectiveness, ideal for infrequent access. In comparison, Microsoft Azure File Storage stands out with seamless integration and better accessibility for regular data interactions. Users appreciate Azure’s comprehensive feature set for managing and sharing files across environments.
Download Amazon S3 Glacier vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage Report
Amazon S3 Glacier has an affordable setup cost, while Microsoft Azure File Storage has a slightly higher initial setup expense.
View comparison
Pricing
Amazon S3 Glacier has an affordable setup cost, while Microsoft Azure File Storage has a slightly higher initial setup expense.
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Google Cloud Storage
4.3 out of 5
Google Cloud Storage often stands out for its competitive pricing and extensive flexibility. In comparison, Microsoft Azure File Storage offers advanced features and strong integration with other Microsoft services. Google Cloud Storage ensures fast retrieval times, while Microsoft Azure File Storage provides robust security and deployment support.
Download Google Cloud Storage vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage Report
The setup cost for Google Cloud Storage is minimal compared to the more substantial initial investment required for Microsoft Azure File Storage. Google Cloud Storage offers a more cost-effective entry point, while Microsoft Azure File Storage demands higher upfront costs.
View comparison
Pricing
The setup cost for Google Cloud Storage is minimal compared to the more substantial initial investment required for Microsoft Azure File Storage. Google Cloud Storage offers a more cost-effective entry point, while Microsoft Azure File Storage demands higher upfront costs.
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Amazon S3
4.4 out of 5
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Amazon S3
4.4 out of 5
Amazon S3 excels in scalability and integration. In comparison, Microsoft Azure File Storage offers superior data management. Amazon S3 is robust in capacity and speed, while Microsoft Azure File Storage integrates seamlessly with Microsoft services. Pricing models are flexible with Amazon S3, whereas Microsoft Azure File Storage provides competitive pricing.
Download Amazon S3 vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage Report
Amazon S3 setup costs are competitive and straightforward, whereas Microsoft Azure File Storage setup costs are slightly higher with added complexity.
View comparison
Pricing
Amazon S3 setup costs are competitive and straightforward, whereas Microsoft Azure File Storage setup costs are slightly higher with added complexity.
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Azure NetApp Files
4.0 out of 5
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Azure NetApp Files
4.0 out of 5
Azure NetApp Files provides advanced data protection and premium integrations, appealing to security-focused tech buyers. In comparison, Azure File Storage's scalable architecture and cost-efficiency attract those seeking flexibility and integration across Microsoft's ecosystem, though both are noted for pricing complexity.
Download Azure NetApp Files vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage Report
Microsoft Azure File Storage offers a simpler setup with lower upfront costs, while Azure NetApp Files involves higher initial expenses due to its advanced configuration capabilities. The cost difference highlights Azure File Storage's affordability compared to Azure NetApp Files' premi...
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Azure File Storage offers a simpler setup with lower upfront costs, while Azure NetApp Files involves higher initial expenses due to its advanced configuration capabilities. The cost difference highlights Azure File Storage's affordability compared to Azure NetApp Files' premi...
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Wasabi
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Wasabi
4.1 out of 5
Microsoft Azure File Storage offers seamless integration with other Microsoft services, advanced security, and flexibility for large data volumes. In comparison, Wasabi provides high-speed performance, simplicity, and cost-efficiency, making it more attractive for straightforward storage needs and quick setup.
Download Microsoft Azure File Storage vs. Wasabi Report
Microsoft Azure File Storage has a higher setup cost than Wasabi, making Wasabi a more budget-friendly option for initial deployment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Azure File Storage has a higher setup cost than Wasabi, making Wasabi a more budget-friendly option for initial deployment.
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Zadara
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Zadara
4.3 out of 5
Microsoft Azure File Storage is favored for its seamless integration with Windows Server and Active Directory. In comparison, Zadara provides enterprise-grade performance with features like data encryption and NAS/SAN support. Zadara's pricing is seen as flexible, while Azure's compatibility and security are key selling points.
Download Microsoft Azure File Storage vs. Zadara Report
Microsoft Azure File Storage requires initial setup costs, while Zadara offers lower upfront costs making it more accessible for smaller operations.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Azure File Storage requires initial setup costs, while Zadara offers lower upfront costs making it more accessible for smaller operations.
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Oracle Cloud Archive Storage
1 out of 5

Oracle offers general purpose and high memory compute shapes to provide the full power of the Oracle Database in the cloud for any type of application. You can use all standard network connections and have administrative control.

View comparison
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Oracle Database Backup Service
4.2 out of 5
Microsoft Azure File Storage integrates seamlessly with Azure services and offers efficient file sharing capabilities, making it a cost-effective choice. In comparison, Oracle Database Backup Service provides reliable, secure backup and recovery tailored for Oracle databases, justifying its investment with advanced, specialized features.
Download Microsoft Azure File Storage vs. Oracle Database Backup Service Report
Microsoft Azure File Storage offers a lower setup cost, while Oracle Database Backup Service requires a higher initial investment.
View comparison
Pricing
Microsoft Azure File Storage offers a lower setup cost, while Oracle Database Backup Service requires a higher initial investment.
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Microsoft Azure File Storage Logo
Oracle Cloud Software Appliance
1 out of 5

Well-Known Interface - connect applications to cloud storage using NFS – a widely used data protocol.

View comparison

Related categories

Public Cloud Storage Services
Cloud Migration
Cloud Storage