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

NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS vs NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud comparison

 

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

NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Cloud Migration
34th
Ranking in Cloud Storage
36th
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
26th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetApp Cloud Volumes Servic...
Ranking in Cloud Migration
24th
Ranking in Cloud Storage
19th
Ranking in Public Cloud Storage Services
17th
Average Rating
9.4
Reviews Sentiment
8.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Cloud Migration category, the mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS is 1.3%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud is 2.4%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Cloud Migration Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for Google Cloud2.4%
NetApp Cloud Volumes Service for AWS1.3%
Other96.3%
Cloud Migration
 

Featured Reviews

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.
CC
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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 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."
"Storage was taking up maybe 10 to 20% of my life at the startup, and now it takes up zero."
"Overall, they have very impressive technologies."
"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."
"It is a good service for high availability that is very easy to configure."
 

Cons

"We'd like the solution to be less expensive and offer lower latency."
"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."
"The user interface has room for improvement."
"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."
"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

Information not available
"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
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Construction Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
12%
Comms Service Provider
10%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

Cloud Volumes Service for AWS, NetApp CVS for AWS, CVS for AWS
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

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Atos, Bandwidth, Wuxi NextCode
Find out what your peers are saying about Hewlett Packard Enterprise, NetApp, IBM and others in Cloud Migration. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.