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

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 #10 with an average rating of 8.0, while NetApp is ranked #19. Microsoft holds a 3.0% mindshare in PCSS, compared to NetApp’s 1.4% 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
  • 844 Views
  • 827 Comparison Views
88% willing to recommend
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Read 3 NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud reviews
  • 530 Views
  • 239 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
 

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.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
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 881,082 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
10th
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
19th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Migration (26th), Cloud Storage (18th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Public Cloud Storage Services category, the mindshare of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is 3.0%, up from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 1.4%, 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
ProductMarket Share (%)
Microsoft Azure Object Storage3.0%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud1.4%
Other95.6%
Public Cloud Storage Services
 

Featured Reviews

Akram Zabat - PeerSpot reviewer
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
CC
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 product has good accessibility."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage improves the application performance and reliability, enabling faster processing for critical business workloads, and it reduces the cost and operational overhead with scalable, secure, and easy to manage cloud storage."
"With Microsoft Azure Object Storage, they are an open market."
"We can do data queries easily."
"The solution offers good documentation."
"The most valuable features of the solution are its performance and stability."
"It has helped with data management."
"Technical support has been excellent."
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

"The setup process could always be a bit easier."
"One of the things that are currently important is consistency. To achieve this, another database called Cosmos DB is available. We want to have a similar consistency to the one in Cosmos DB but at a cheaper price."
"Technical support should be a little bit faster."
"The stability could be improved."
"Sometimes, I have issues with the Microsoft portal, which interrupts the service."
"The initial setup is not easy to understand."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is a pretty expensive solution."
"The customer support for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not good."
More Microsoft Azure Object Storage cons
"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."
"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."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is not affordable for small businesses."
"Additional costs depend on the data and complexity of the project."
"I would rate the pricing a four out of ten because there is a lot of competition out there."
"The cost is based on the amount of traffic and we paid approximately 18 lakh Rupees ($25,000 USD) last year."
"The cost should be reduced to make it more competitive."
"We don't need to pay for the solution's license."
"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."
"Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not expensive."
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."
report
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
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
16%
Computer Software Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Healthcare Company
5%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business23
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise21
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 Logo
Amazon S3 vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage
Compared 28% of the time
Oracle Cloud Object Storage vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage Logo
Oracle Cloud Object Storage vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage
Compared 27% of the time
Amazon S3 Glacier vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage Logo
Amazon S3 Glacier vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage
Compared 13% of the time
Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage Logo
Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage
Compared 12% of the time
Wasabi vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage Logo
Wasabi vs Microsoft Azure Object Storage
Compared 7% of the time
More Microsoft Azure Object Storage Competitors
Amazon FSx vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Logo
Amazon FSx vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
Compared 21% of the time
Dropbox Business - Enterprise vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Logo
Dropbox Business - Enterprise vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
Compared 17% of the time
Google Cloud Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Logo
Google Cloud Storage vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
Compared 17% of the time
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Logo
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP 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 Logo
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud
Compared 13% of the time
More NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
Microsoft Azure Object Storage
January 2026
Microsoft Azure Object Storage reportDownload 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 reportDownload 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
881,082 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.