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

Microsoft and NetApp are both solutions in the Public Cloud Storage Services category. Microsoft is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.0, while NetApp is ranked #19. Microsoft holds a 3.2% mindshare in PCSS, compared to NetApp’s 1.5% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Microsoft users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of NetApp users who would recommend it.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Read 57 Microsoft Azure Object Storage reviews

1,042 Views
1,021 Comparison Views

88% willing to recommend

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Read 3 NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud reviews

596 Views
268 Comparison Views

100% willing to recommend

Microsoft Azure Object Storage

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Oct 1, 2024

Microsoft Azure Object Storage and NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud offer robust cloud storage solutions. Users are generally happier with the support and pricing of Microsoft Azure Object Storage. However, NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud seems superior due to its extensive features, and users feel it justifies the higher price.

Features: Microsoft Azure Object Storage is praised for its secure data management, high availability, and reliable support. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is noted for its performance, ease of use, and seamless integration with Google Cloud services.

Room for Improvement: Users suggest Microsoft Azure Object Storage could improve in interface intuitiveness, integration options, and documentation clarity. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud could benefit from enhanced data mobility, cost efficiency, and user interface enhancements.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Microsoft Azure Object Storage shows a more straightforward deployment model, with users appreciating the responsive customer service. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is recognized for its efficient deployment but with slightly slower customer service response times.

Pricing and ROI: Microsoft Azure Object Storage users find setup costs reasonable and see good ROI. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud exhibits higher initial setup costs but compensates with significant ROI due to its features and integrations.

To learn more, read our detailed Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 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

Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services

8th

Average Rating

8.0

Reviews Sentiment

6.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...

Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services

19th

Average Rating

9.4

Reviews Sentiment

8.4

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

Cloud Migration (26th), Cloud Storage (18th)

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Public Cloud Storage Services category, the mindshare of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is 3.2%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 1.5%, up from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Public Cloud Storage Services Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Microsoft Azure Object Storage	3.2%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud	1.5%
Other	95.3%

Public Cloud Storage Services

Featured Reviews

Akram Zabat

Consultant - Architecture Solution at Onepoint

Provides versatile data storage solutions with a simple setup and easy to use

It's similar to S3 for AWS. The ability to store everything inside Blob or Object storage and use it for archiving data is beneficial. For example, you can transform data from relational databases, flatten it, and store it in Object storage to save space within the databases. If I want to save data and do not require legacy access, it's a good solution, for instance, to migrate archives from databases to Object storage. This can also be used for business intelligence purposes. Having a storage solution for data makes it the best place to store it. Azure has its own solution for StatsQ Web Apps.

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 ability to store everything inside Blob or Object storage and use it for archiving data is beneficial."

"Blob Storage is one of the best resources in Azure for storing unstructured data such as files, video files, audio files, and Excel files."

"The tool's maintenance is not complex."

"We can easily create a storage layer in any system."

"We have had a good experience with customer service and support."

"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is an easy-to-use and stable solution."

"The features of Microsoft Azure Object Storage that are most valuable are the ones providing encryption. Access is more controlled using private endpoints and SaaS token keys. Many access control features exist."

"This solution is easy to use, and performance-wise it is better than others."

More Microsoft Azure Object Storage 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

"Object re-use should be improved in order to get better performance and reduce the cost."

"The initial setup could be more straightforward. It would be best if you had a little bit of training or an understanding of the concepts. It's important because if you don't do that, then you might end up not following the best practices. Then you will learn it the hard way by making mistakes and then know that you shouldn't have done this or that. It's better to attend workshops and take a hands-on approach."

"The product is expensive."

"The tool doesn't offer Microsoft Copilot and Microsoft AI."

"The solution can be quite slow."

"Security alerts and integrations could be improved as part of lifecycle management, especially for archives and restoration requirements, along with automations that we can plan."

"Regarding technical support from Microsoft, I find the unified support is not as per my expectation. Most of the issues I log do not get resolved on the first attempt."

"The pricing of the solution can be improved."

More Microsoft Azure Object Storage cons

"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."

"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."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is competitive."

"Currently, it is a flexible price policy."

"We don't need to pay for the solution's license."

"Pricing is always confusing for all Microsoft products. For this solution, they do provide the estimates, but it is not easy to guess the exact amount that we will be billed."

"The cost of this solution is high compared to others, although there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."

"I would rate the pricing a four out of ten because there is a lot of competition out there."

"Object Storage is competitively priced."

"You can download the application from Microsoft free of charge."

More Microsoft Azure Object Storage pricing and cost advice

"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 Public Cloud Storage Services solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Marketing Services Firm

24%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

No data available

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	23
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

No data available

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Microsoft Azure Object Storage?

The layout of Microsoft is professional.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

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.

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Amazon S3 vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Compared 31% of the time

Oracle Cloud Object Storage vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Compared 28% of the time

Amazon S3 Glacier vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Compared 14% of the time

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage

Compared 14% of the time

More Microsoft Azure Object Storage 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

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

Compared 12% of the time

More NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Azure Object Storage

January 2026

Download Microsoft Azure Object Storage 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

Microsoft Azure Blob Storage, Azure Object Storage, MS Azure Object Storage

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

REST-based object storage for unstructured data in the cloud

Store infrequently accessed data in a low-cost cool storage tier
Store frequently accessed application data in a hot storage tier
Stream video, audio, and other media to web, mobile, or desktop applications
Power big data analytics
Access your data more securely, both over the wire and at rest

Microsoft

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

Umbraco, Xbox, Radioshack, 343 Industries, McKesson

Atos, Bandwidth, Wuxi NextCode

Buyer's Guide

Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

December 2025

Free Report: Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud

Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud report.

See our list of best Public Cloud Storage Services vendors.

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.