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

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and NetApp are both solutions in the Cloud Storage category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.0, while NetApp is ranked #18. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 3.1% mindshare in CS, compared to NetApp’s 1.7% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of NetApp users who would recommend it.

Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...

Read 18 Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) reviews

4,965 Views
844 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Read 3 NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud reviews

596 Views
417 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 17, 2024

Amazon EFS and NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud cater to different user needs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service edges out due to its feature-rich package, despite Amazon EFS being appreciated for pricing.

Features: Amazon EFS users value its scalability and integration with AWS services. Additional features include automatic capacity adjustments and seamless data transfers. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service users praise its performance and support for multiple protocols. Other notable features are advanced data management tools and robust security options.

Room for Improvement: Amazon EFS users wish for improved performance and cross-region capabilities. They also seek better data redundancy options. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service users seek better scalability and reduced latency. Suggestions include more intuitive user interfaces and enhanced automation features.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Amazon EFS is praised for straightforward deployment but has criticisms for slow customer support. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service users find deployment challenging but commend the prompt and helpful support. NetApp’s customer service is more favorably reviewed.

Pricing and ROI: Amazon EFS is considered cost-effective with satisfactory ROI. Pricing starts at $0.08 per GB-month for standard storage. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service is seen as pricey but features justify the expense, with prices starting around $0.20 per GB per month. NetApp offers better ROI due to its comprehensive capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Report (Updated: February 2026).

Buyer's Guide

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

February 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 881,757 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

Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...

Ranking in Cloud Storage

11th

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

File and Object Storage (10th)

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Ranking in Cloud Storage

18th

Average Rating

9.4

Reviews Sentiment

8.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Cloud Migration (26th), Public Cloud Storage Services (19th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Cloud Storage category, the mindshare of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is 3.1%, down from 8.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 1.7%, down from 1.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Cloud Storage Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)	3.1%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud	1.7%
Other	95.2%

Cloud Storage

Featured Reviews

Amaratunga Arachchige Vimukthi Amaratunga

Regional Manager at Aspire Lifestyles

Security features impress while response times need improvement

We use cloud storage security, which is a virus scanner for their infrastructure, as a new addition. Other than that, it focuses on serverless features, such as Lambda and Aurora SQL server databases. CSS cloud storage security, which is offered by AWS, is integrated into our system. It functions as a virus scanner that monitors whenever any incoming file arrives. The AWS service is excellent security-wise, and I have seen some other features besides security, such as automatic scaling that helped us significantly. Regarding integration, it provides us with the benefit that our data is kept within our account only.

Read full review

Colin Constable

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.

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 platform is highly scalable."

"The first valuable thing is it is scalable."

"Elastic File Systems allow me to share data, provision, and manage capacity and performance in AWS."

"The solution is scalable."

"There are huge money savings, as we can save more than half of our costs."

"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."

"The initial setup was straightforward."

"Amazon EFS offers the flexibility of scaling as needed without requiring pre-provisioned storage."

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) 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

"It could be better in connecting with Windows Server instances."

"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."

"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."

"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."

"EFS could be improved by including a one-click setup."

"The main challenge with EFS is its cost, which is slightly higher compared to EBS or S3."

"I don't have notes on improvements."

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) 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."

"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."

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage."

"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) offers a pay-as-you-go model, so whenever you use its services, you need to pay."

"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 solution's price is mid-ranged."

"The product charges are based on the amount of data stored."

"The product's price depends on the services and the size and capacity at which it is used in a business environment."

"I would rate the pricing 7 out of 10."

"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

881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Manufacturing Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Computer Software Company

12%

Comms Service Provider

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	8

No data available

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...

See all answers

What do you like most about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?

The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?

We don't need to purchase it; we are just using it and paying Amazon as per the utilization. We make direct payments to Amazon based on our usage.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Microsoft Azure File Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 84% of the time

Google Cloud Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 2% of the time

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 2% of the time

Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 2% of the time

HPE File Storage and Object Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 1% of the time

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Competitors

Amazon FSx vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Compared 20% of the time

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

Compared 18% of the time

Dropbox Business - Enterprise vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Compared 18% of the time

Google Cloud Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Compared 17% of the time

More NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

February 2026

Download Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) product report

Buyer's Guide

NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

January 2026

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

Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) provides simple, scalable file storage for use with Amazon EC2 instances in the AWS Cloud. Amazon EFS is easy to use and offers a simple interface that allows you to create and configure file systems quickly and easily. With Amazon EFS, storage capacity is elastic, growing and shrinking automatically as you add and remove files, so your applications have the storage they need, when they need it.

When mounted to Amazon EC2 instances, an Amazon EFS file system provides a standard file system interface and file system access semantics, allowing you to seamlessly integrate Amazon EFS with your existing applications and tools. Multiple Amazon EC2 instances can access an Amazon EFS file system at the same time, allowing Amazon EFS to provide a common data source for workloads and applications running on more than one Amazon EC2 instance.

It’s designed for high availability and durability, and provides performance for a broad spectrum of workloads and applications, including Big Data and analytics, media processing workflows, content management, web serving, and home directories.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

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

Arcesium, Atlassian, Seeking Alpha, Zend

Atos, Bandwidth, Wuxi NextCode

Buyer's Guide

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

February 2026

Free Report: Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud and other solutions. Updated: February 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud report.

See our list of best Cloud Storage 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.