Google Cloud Storage and Microsoft Azure File Storage compete in the storage market. Google Cloud Storage stands out for ease of deployment, while Microsoft Azure File Storage has a stronger feature set and customer support.
Features: Google Cloud Storage offers scalability, durability, and integrated data analytics. Microsoft Azure File Storage provides seamless integration with Windows environments, advanced security features, and hybrid cloud capabilities.
Room for Improvement: Google Cloud Storage needs better offline support, improved management interface for large datasets, and enhanced usability. Microsoft Azure File Storage users highlight occasional performance lags, a better user experience, and improved documentation.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Google Cloud Storage is praised for a straightforward setup and deployment process, although its customer service could be more responsive. Microsoft Azure File Storage is slightly more complex to deploy but offers robust and responsive customer support.
Pricing and ROI: Google Cloud Storage is valued for competitive pricing and a transparent cost structure, contributing to a favorable ROI. Microsoft Azure File Storage, though more expensive, justifies the cost through its extensive features and strong support, enhancing overall ROI.
We have self-studied to learn the services.
For SAP loads, Google provided a specific team, which resulted in good support.
As and when we require, they are able to provide solutions or guide us toward solutions.
Microsoft technical support is very prompt.
The perspective documentation is good.
Google Cloud Storage is scalable, but there are limitations.
There was no direct experience with any instability during my involvement.
I rate the stability of Microsoft Azure File Storage as a seven out of ten.
We sometimes encounter glitches with bigger files, but everything else works as expected.
They cover a broad range of products, which might affect their ability to compete well in certain niches.
Expanding the storage capacity would be beneficial.
Some chunking logics need to be better to address issues with processing bigger files.
Google Cloud was cheaper compared to AWS and Azure.
Depending on your setup, Google Cloud Storage is economical, especially if you do not need high stability and scalability.
I would rate it three or three and a half out of ten on the pricing scale.
The pricing for Microsoft Azure File Storage is five out of ten, not so expensive and not so low.
The user interface of Google Cloud Storage is easy and consistent across all their products.
We do not experience any disruptions, and the service meets our needs and requirements.
It is satisfying our requirements with encryption and security features in place.
The storage solution saves time and makes document processing seamless.
In Microsoft Azure File Storage, the S3 bucket is the most helpful feature for my use.
Google Cloud Storage is praised for its fast performance, seamless integration, high security, and scalability. Users store and access large amounts of data easily, backup files, host websites, and collaborate on projects. The platform's reliability and cost-effectiveness make it a top choice for data storage and management.
Fully managed file shares that use the standard SMB 3.0 protocol
Key scenarios:
We monitor all Public Cloud Storage Services 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.
