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

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs Azure NetApp Files comparison

 

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

Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...
Ranking in Cloud Storage
4th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
15
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (8th)
Azure NetApp Files
Ranking in Cloud Storage
7th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (3rd), Public Cloud Storage Services (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Cloud Storage category, the mindshare of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is 7.6%, down from 9.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Azure NetApp Files is 8.8%, down from 10.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Storage
 

Featured Reviews

MuhammadAzhar Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
Auto-scaling capabilities enhance file management while reducing downtime
The most valuable feature of Amazon EFS is its auto-scaling capability. It's really easy to configure EFS by just creating it and running a command to directly configure it with my servers. It supports unlimited use, and charges are applied based on the file usage at the end of the month. The solution offers reduced downtime and increased durability through its auto-scaling features.
AjayKumar13 - PeerSpot reviewer
Fast, reliable, and helps meet our SLAs
The most valuable feature is that the sixty-terabyte database snapshot can be done in less than two to three minutes. It is faster. It is quicker. It is reliable. You don't need to take the snapshot. Snapshots are compressed. It doesn't take storage from the back end. It takes three minutes to do sixty terabytes of the database. You don't have to go to the tape and store it outside, which takes hours and hours. It also uses a lot less of the storage. It's very easy to restore or copy the snapshots to other locations for disaster recovery. There are a lot of benefits. In terms of the snapshot's rapid restore capability, we were testing the load of performance testing, and we needed to rebuild the DR site. If I need to rebuild the DR for a standby database, it takes sixty terabytes to copy onto the another site, which will take at least a day. Now, the snapshot is easy. We just copy the snapshots, and then we do the cross-region application. The snapshots came along with that, and that's where we were able to build the DR site within a few hours rather than days. All together, instead of a four-day process, instead of a day.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Elastic File Systems allow me to share data, provision, and manage capacity and performance in AWS."
"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations."
"We are not that big of a cloud user. We just use it for the storage of our bytes. The most valuable aspect is the storage."
"Amazon EFS is extremely stable, as it is managed by AWS."
"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."
"Amazon EFS offers the flexibility of scaling as needed without requiring pre-provisioned storage."
"Amazon EFS offers the flexibility of scaling as needed without requiring pre-provisioned storage."
"Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."
"The most valuable features of the solution is replication to another region and the performance. The solution is stable. The solution is scalable. The initial setup is straightforward."
"I think the easiest part is, when you do a comparison, it is the throughput versus the cost. And it's much easier to set up."
"Azure NetApp Files has been stable."
"It has saved a lot of time. Because in the older, conventional hardware system, they need to raise a ticket to go to storage engineering, then storage engineering would increased the size. Now, it's dynamic. You don't have to do anything. This improved the time by more than 50 percent."
"This solution definitely makes us more efficient in being able to provide storage quickly to our customers in the Azure Cloud."
"One aspect of Azure NetApp Files that I truly appreciate is its remarkable performance capabilities."
"Since we have NetApp's internally, we use the SnapMirror predominantly for this process in the cloud which is beneficial."
 

Cons

"Elastic File Systems can be expensive due to the nature of data transfer costs, using services like SSTP, and potentially being costly in a rate-shift context."
"Amazon EFS is more costly compared to other storage options available from AWS."
"I don't have notes on improvements."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The platform's connectivity could be improved to be more comparable to S3 buckets, which offer better API availability."
"Around 80 percent of the features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are available on Linux and not in Windows, making it a major drawback of the product."
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."
"We were looking for a clustered solution that has over-complicated things because we had it in AWS, which is Amazon. There was a solution for clustered NetApp. That meant there would be two NetApps that were not clustered because there was no solution for a cluster. We would like there to be an HA cluster solution."
"Its pricing can be better."
"We would like to have backup functionality built-in so that we don't run into the issue where the replication process makes a copy of the corrupted data."
"Azure NetApp Files could improve by being more diverse to integrate better with other solutions, such as Splunk and the on-premise version. There are some use cases that are not covered natively by Azure. It is not the best solution because it is not external from the cloud which for me is the best type of solution."
"The initial setup was not straightforward. We had help from the NetApp team."
"I have a hunch that storage could be now the most expensive portion of our monthly bill. So I can imagine that, not this year, but next year we will be talking about looking deeper into ways how we can optimize the cost."
"The deployment process is somewhat complex compared to other storage solutions."
"The pricing definitely needs to be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate the pricing 7 out of 10."
"It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage."
"The product's price depends on the services and the size and capacity at which it is used in a business environment."
"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) offers a pay-as-you-go model, so whenever you use its services, you need to pay."
"The solution's price is mid-ranged."
"The main challenge with EFS is its cost, which is slightly higher compared to EBS or S3. For one GB or ten GB of data, S3 is much cheaper. EFS could cost around $30 to $50 per month for similar usage."
"The product charges are based on the amount of data stored."
"Our pricing has not been determined because we are still waiting on additional features."
"The price of Azure NetApp Files could be better."
"The licensing fees for this solution vary, ranging from a single shelf to a full suite."
"Its price is double the price of the premium disks, which is the main reason why customers don't go for this solution in the end."
"The pricing depends on your scaling and consumption."
"This solution is very expensive compared to the alternatives."
"It is expensive in small environments, which could be better. The reason is the four terabyte minimum. A one terabyte minimum would be better."
"The performance has improved by about 30 percent."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Storage solutions are best for your needs.
851,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
15%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Educational Organization
27%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

Which file storage system is better - Amazon EFS (elastic file storage) or Azure File Storage?
Amazon EFS is easy to set up: you can use the AWS management console, API, or command-line. Amazon EFS can grow to petabytes and deliver consistent low latencies and high levels of throughput. This...
What do you like most about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
Amazon EFS is more costly compared to other storage options available from AWS.
How does Azure NetApp Files compare to NetApp ONTAP?
Azure NetApp Files is a Microsoft Azure file storage service built on NetApp technology. The platform combines the file capabilities of Azure and NetApp to move critical file-based applications to ...
What do you like most about Azure NetApp Files?
The availability is good, meaning downtime or network issues rarely occur. The system also offers flexibility, allowing for increases in data volume, IOPS, and other capabilities without requiring ...
 

Also Known As

No data available
NetApp ANF, ANF
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Arcesium, Atlassian, Seeking Alpha, Zend
SAP, Restaurant Magic
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Azure NetApp Files and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
851,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.