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."We can run code and deploy it whenever we want."
"The solution is scalable."
"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."
"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."
"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."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations."
"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."
"Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its flexibility."
"One aspect of Azure NetApp Files that I truly appreciate is its remarkable performance capabilities."
"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."
"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."
"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 most valuable features of the solution is replication to another region and the performance. The solution is stable. The solution is scalable. The initial setup is straightforward."
"The interface seems strange and complicated."
"It should be simplified. There are people who don't have cloud experience. It should be storage that we are able to just connect to."
"The user activity needs to be more connected."
"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."
"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."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"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."
"We would like to have backup functionality built-in so that we don't run into the issue where the replication process makes a copy of the corrupted data."
"The main area for improvement is in the support ticket system. Since it's a SaaS platform, support tickets are managed by Microsoft or NetApp backend. This can sometimes lead to cross-functional challenges for organizations."
"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."
"The deployment process is somewhat complex compared to other storage solutions."
"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."
"We would like to see more paired regions for the replication."
"The main hurdle in promoting this solution is the price. Its price definitely requires an improvement. It is more expensive than other options, so customers go for a cheaper option."
"Azure NetApp Files is expensive."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is ranked 5th in Cloud Storage with 10 reviews while Azure NetApp Files is ranked 8th 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 Amazon S3, whereas Azure NetApp Files is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Nasuni, Google Cloud Storage and NetApp ONTAP. 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.