No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Microsoft Azure Object Storage
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
8th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
57
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
26th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (36th), Cloud Storage (36th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2026, in the Public Cloud Storage Services category, the mindshare of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is 3.3%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS is 1.3%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Public Cloud Storage Services Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Microsoft Azure Object Storage3.3%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS1.3%
Other95.4%
Public Cloud Storage Services
 

Featured Reviews

Pradeep Saxena - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Technical Officer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Cloud storage has improved HR document management, performance, and secure archival
Microsoft Azure Object Storage improves the application performance and reliability, enabling faster processing for critical business workloads. It also reduces the cost and operational overhead with scalable, secure, and easy to manage cloud storage. Switching from public storage to Microsoft Azure Object Storage resulted in cost savings and enhanced security. This application is used on a day-to-day basis, making it useful while providing significant cost savings. In addition, it is secure. Microsoft Azure Object Storage is stable. The scalability of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is that it provides a scalable solution.
reviewer2039379 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution Architect at a university with 10,001+ employees
Great migrations, useful integrations, and offers good data replication
The local libraries from NetApp to NetApp are good. This way, we don't have to put the middleman in between to do the transition or conversion. The NetApp Cloud Volume Services for AWS has been helping migrate workloads onto the cloud. We did migrate a couple of native applications into AWS using this, and it was helpful. In terms of the integration with AWS native services, I did not configure it by myself. There was another team who did it. That said, I presume they didn't run into any issues, which is why we are using it. While the solution did not help us reduce the amount of storage, it allowed us to have data replicated across on-premises and in the cloud, so that we have a backup in DR. While it did not reduce the footprint, it helped DR expansion. It increased redundancy. Since deploying the product, we have not been affected by ransomware or other external threats.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"I love the fact that Microsoft was really committed to improving it."
"One valuable feature of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is that it provides REST API access to your data, allowing easy data consumption."
"The product's initial setup phase is straightforward."
"As we have worked with this product, we have not come across any problems that could not be resolved."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage provides a platform for uploading or downloading big datasets."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its performance and stability."
"I would recommend Microsoft Azure Object Storage to anyone considering implementing this solution."
"Object Storage is easy to use, very portable, and easy to integrate."
"The NetApp Cloud Volume Services for AWS has been helping migrate workloads onto the cloud. We did migrate a couple of native applications into AWS using this, and it was helpful."
 

Cons

"There are a lot of points for improvement at the moment. For example, in the case of this product, we are not able to do a backup of what we call NAS, network-attached storage appliances, directly to the cloud."
"I have no complaints about Microsoft Azure Object Storage, but maybe its market size could be more extensive, and its backup speed enhanced."
"One potential area for improvement is the replication process."
"Since the solution is messy and heavy, it needs to be faster in terms of speed and latency."
"The stability of the product is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"The solution needs to improve the custom domain integration with static web pages. Even though Blog Storage is providing the static content hosting feature, due to the custom domain availability, the integration is not available. In most cases, we withdraw from that service and use our app service to host our static data feeds."
"The stability could be improved."
"Object re-use should be improved in order to get better performance and reduce the cost."
"We'd like the solution to be less expensive and offer lower latency."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We don't need to pay for the solution's license."
"Object Storage is cost-effective, and our license fees are about $200 per month."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is an expensive solution."
"The pricing for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is high and needs some reduction. It's a seven out of ten, price-wise, because it currently limits your consumption, so the solution should have better pricing."
"The pricing can be improved. There is an yearly licensing cost for the solution. There are some reserve instances that are additional to the licensing cost."
"The cost is based on the amount of traffic and we paid approximately 18 lakh Rupees ($25,000 USD) last year."
"The solution's cost is on a pay-per-use basis."
"I'm not aware of the licensing cost, as my customer handles it. In Taiwan, it's reasonably priced."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Public Cloud Storage Services solutions are best for your needs.
919,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Outsourcing Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
11%
Marketing Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
10%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business22
Midsize Enterprise12
Large Enterprise22
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Microsoft Azure Object Storage?
My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is very good.
What needs improvement with Microsoft Azure Object Storage?
The customer support for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not good. If a good engineer is assigned, then it functions well. However, every time we are doing troubleshooting, it is not Microsoft.
What is your primary use case for Microsoft Azure Object Storage?
I have used Microsoft Azure Object Storage, which is a blob storage service. Our customers use the services that we provide for blob storage. Our customers use applications, and Microsoft Azure Obj...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Microsoft Azure Blob Storage, Azure Object Storage, MS Azure Object Storage
Cloud Volumes Service for AWS, NetApp CVS for AWS, CVS for AWS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Umbraco, Xbox, Radioshack, 343 Industries, McKesson
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Web Services (AWS), Nutanix, Hewlett Packard Enterprise and others in Public Cloud Storage Services. Updated: October 2026.
919,894 professionals have used our research since 2012.