We performed a comparison between Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) and Azure NetApp Files based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"EFS is flexible."
"The solution is scalable."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface."
"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."
"We are not that big of a cloud user. We just use it for the storage of our bytes. The most valuable aspect is the storage."
"This solution definitely makes us more efficient in being able to provide storage quickly to our customers in the Azure Cloud."
"Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."
"Since we have NetApp's internally, we use the SnapMirror predominantly for this process in the cloud which is beneficial."
"I think the easiest part is, when you do a comparison, it is the throughput versus the cost. And it's much easier to set up."
"The availability is good, meaning downtime or network issues rarely occur. The system also offers flexibility, allowing for increases in data volume, IOPS, and other capabilities without requiring downtime, which is a strong point. Based on the money spent, we can get performance improvements and high availability."
"It's elastic, so it scales with our demands. We can start small, then with the addition of customer loads, we can expand on-the-fly without the need to reprovision something."
"I like the SnapMirror feature in Azure NetApp Files. It helps me create backups with snapshots and makes data recovery and compression."
"It has saved a lot of time. Because in the older, conventional hardware system, they need to raise a ticket to go to storage engineering, then storage engineering would increased the size. Now, it's dynamic. You don't have to do anything. This improved the time by more than 50 percent."
"Around 80 percent of the features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are available on Linux and not in Windows, making it a major drawback of the product."
"The interface seems strange and complicated."
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"It could be better in connecting with Windows Server instances."
"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."
"The user activity needs to be more connected."
"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."
"I would like to see multi-zone redundancy so that I don't have to worry about it. I just back up my data to that one SMB share and I know that it's replicated to a different region."
"Azure NetApp Files could improve by being more diverse to integrate better with other solutions, such as Splunk and the on-premise version. There are some use cases that are not covered natively by Azure. It is not the best solution because it is not external from the cloud which for me is the best type of solution."
"I have a hunch that storage could be now the most expensive portion of our monthly bill. So I can imagine that, not this year, but next year we will be talking about looking deeper into ways how we can optimize the cost."
"Azure NetApp Files is expensive."
"We would like for the files which are coming in that we can version them. So, if a file is accidentally deleted, there should have a recycle bin option where we can go back, and at least once, clean it up."
"We were looking for a clustered solution that has over-complicated things because we had it in AWS, which is Amazon. There was a solution for clustered NetApp. That meant there would be two NetApps that were not clustered because there was no solution for a cluster. We would like there to be an HA cluster solution."
"Reserved Instances for Azure NetApp Files would improve more use cases, making them more valuable in Azure as the cost would be reduced."
"The pricing definitely needs to be improved."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is ranked 6th in Cloud Storage with 10 reviews while Azure NetApp Files is ranked 5th in Cloud Storage with 15 reviews. Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is rated 8.6, while Azure NetApp Files is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) writes "Offers integration capabilities that improve areas like storage and security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Azure NetApp Files writes "We can expand our storage on-the-fly without the need to reprovision". Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, Google Cloud Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Amazon S3 Glacier and Oracle Cloud Object Storage, whereas Azure NetApp Files is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Nasuni, NetApp ONTAP and Google Cloud Storage. See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Azure NetApp Files report.
See our list of best Cloud Storage vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Storage 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.