Azure NetApp Files vs IBM Turbonomic comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
NetApp Logo
2,377 views|1,523 comparisons
93% willing to recommend
IBM Logo
958 views|433 comparisons
98% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary

We performed a comparison between Azure NetApp Files and IBM Turbonomic based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two Cloud Migration solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
To learn more, read our detailed Azure NetApp Files vs. IBM Turbonomic Report (Updated: May 2024).
771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"Azure NetApp Files has been stable.""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.""You can change it non-disruptively. You can increase the size and decrease the size online, which is a huge benefit compared to Azure disks. It just works seamlessly. You don't need to stop the instances.""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.""Its security and ease of use are most valuable.""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.""Since we have NetApp's internally, we use the SnapMirror predominantly for this process in the cloud which is beneficial.""Using NetApp Files got us out of a really difficult situation quickly, effectively, and at a reasonable cost."

More Azure NetApp Files Pros →

"Turbonomic can show us if we're not using some of our storage volumes efficiently in AWS. For example, if we've over-provisioned one of our virtual machines to have dedicated IOPs that it doesn't need, Turbonomic will detect that and tell us.""We have seen a 30% performance improvement overall.""In our organization, optimizing application performance is a continuous process that is beyond human scale. We would not be able to do the number of actions that Turbonomic takes on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. It is humanly impossible with the little micro adjustments that it can make. That is a huge differentiator. If you just figure each action could take anywhere very conservatively from five to 10 minutes to act upon, then you multiply that out by thousands of actions every month, it is easily something where you could say, "I am saving a couple of FTEs."""The automation and orchestration components are definitely the best part, as you can tell it what it can do and when, and just let it be.""I like Turbonomic's built-in reporting. It provides a ton of information out of the box, so I don't have to build panels for the monthly summaries and other reports I need to present to management. We get better performance and bottleneck reporting from this than we do from our older EMC software.""The proactive monitoring of all our open enrollment applications has improved our organization. We have used it to size applications that we are moving to the cloud. Therefore, when we move them out there, we have them appropriately sized. We use it for reporting to current application owners, showing them where they are wasting money. There are easy things to find for an application, e.g., they decommissioned the server, but they never took care of the storage. Without a tool like this, that storage would just sit there forever, with us getting billed for it.""Turbonomic helps us right-size virtual machines to utilize the available infrastructure components available and suggest where resources should exist. We also use the predictive tool to forecast what will happen when we add additional compute-demanding virtual machines or something to the environment. It shows us how that would impact existing resources. All of that frees up time that would otherwise be spent on manual calculation.""We like that Turbonomic shows application metrics and estimates the impact of taking a suggested action. It provides us a map of resource utilization as part of its recommendation. We evaluate and compare that to what we think would be appropriate from a human perspective to that what Turbonomic is doing, then take the best action going forward."

More IBM Turbonomic Pros →

Cons
"The solution needs to improve it's ABS environment.""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.""Reserved Instances for Azure NetApp Files would improve more use cases, making them more valuable in Azure as the cost would be reduced.""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.""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.""This solution would be improved with more innovation.""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.""Azure NetApp Files is expensive."

More Azure NetApp Files Cons →

"If they would educate their customers to understand the latest updates, that would help customers... Also, there are a lot of features that are not available in Turbonomic. For example, PaaS component optimization and automation are still in the development phase.""In Azure, it's not what you're using. You purchase the whole 8 TB disk and you pay for it. It doesn't matter how much you're using. So something that I've asked for from Turbonomic is recommendations based on disk utilization. In the example of the 8 TB disk where only 200 GBs are being used, based on the history, there should be a recommendation like, "You can safely use a 500 GB disk." That would create a lot of savings.""Since the introduction of a HTML 5 based interface, our main - but minor - criticism of a less than intuitive operation managers' GUI would be the area of improvement.""Turbonomic doesn't do storage placement how I would prefer. We use multiple shared storage volumes on VMware, so I don't have one big disk. I have lots of disks that I can place VMs on, and that consumes IOPS from the disk subsystem. We were getting recommendations to provision a new volume.""The automation area could be improved, and the generic reports are poor. We want more details in the analysis report from the application layer. The reports from the infrastructure layer are satisfactory, but Turbonomic won't provide much information if we dig down further than the application layer.""We don't use Turbonomic for FinOps and part of the reason is its cost reporting. The reporting could be much more robust and, if that were the case, I could pitch it for FinOps.""I do not like Turbonomic's new licensing model. The previous model was pretty straightforward, whereas the new model incorporates what most of the vendors are doing now with cores and utilization. Our pricing under the new model will go up quite a bit. Before, it was pretty straightforward, easy to understand, and reasonable.""The planning and costing areas could be a little bit more detailed. When you have more than 2,000 machines, the reports don't work properly. They need to fix it so that the reports work when you use that many virtual machines."

More IBM Turbonomic Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "The solution’s combination of the ease of use, simplicity, and reduction in IT management versus the cost has helped a lot. It is very fast to deploy. It's very easy to maintain. You don't have to do a lot in the cloud to maintain this thing, so it gives good performance. It's fast to deploy, easy to maintain, and it gives a better performance. These are the most basic three criteria for any application. This saves cost because the manpower you need to deploy is going down. You're getting better performance and not buying new resources. You have resources available in the cloud. It's just a couple of clicks, then you're good to go."
  • "The performance has improved by about 30 percent."
  • "The licensing fees for this solution vary, ranging from a single shelf to a full suite."
  • "Our pricing has not been determined because we are still waiting on additional features."
  • "It is expensive in small environments, which could be better. The reason is the four terabyte minimum. A one terabyte minimum would be better."
  • "We are currently on a pay-as-you-go model with the storage that we use."
  • "Its price is double the price of the premium disks, which is the main reason why customers don't go for this solution in the end."
  • "The price of Azure NetApp Files could be better."
  • More Azure NetApp Files Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "We felt the pricing was very fair for the product. It is in no way prohibitive for larger deployments, unlike other similar product on the market."
  • "Contact the Turbonomic sales team, explain your needs and what you're looking to monitor. They will get a pre-sales SE on the phone and together work up a very accurate quote."
  • "What I can advise is to trial the product, taking advantage of the Turbonomic pre-sales implemention support and kickstart training."
  • "Licensing is per socket, so load up on the cores rather than a lot of lower core CPUs."
  • "You should understand the cost of your physical servers and how much time and money you are spending year over year on expanding your virtual farm."
  • "Price is a big one. VMTurbo was very competitively priced."
  • "If you're a super-small business, it may be a little bit pricey for you... But in large, enterprise companies where money is, maybe, less of an issue, Turbonomic is not that expensive. I can't imagine why any big company would not buy it, for what it does."
  • "It was an annual buy-in. You basically purchase it based on your host type stuff. The buy-in was about 20K, and the annual maintenance is about $3,000 a year."
  • More IBM Turbonomic Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
    771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:Azure NetApp Files is a Microsoft Azure file storage service built on NetApp technology. The platform combines the file capabilities of Azure and NetApp to move critical file-based applications to the… more »
    Top Answer: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… more »
    Top Answer:I have not seen Turbonomic's new pricing since IBM purchased it. When we were looking at it in my previous company before IBM's purchase, it was compatible with other tools.
    Top Answer:I would like Turbonomic to add more services, especially in the cloud area. I have already told them this. They can add Azure NetApp Files. They can add Azure Blob storage. They have already added… more »
    Top Answer:I mostly provide it to my clients. There are multiple reasons why they would use it depending on the client's needs and their solution.
    Ranking
    3rd
    out of 38 in Cloud Migration
    Views
    2,377
    Comparisons
    1,523
    Reviews
    3
    Average Words per Review
    585
    Rating
    8.0
    5th
    out of 38 in Cloud Migration
    Views
    958
    Comparisons
    433
    Reviews
    14
    Average Words per Review
    1,360
    Rating
    8.4
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    NetApp ANF, ANF
    Turbonomic, VMTurbo Operations Manager
    Learn More
    IBM
    Video Not Available
    Interactive Demo
    NetApp
    Demo Not Available
    Overview

    Extreme File Performance
    Azure NetApp Files allows you to target any of your business-critical file workloads with extreme file throughput with sub-millisecond response times.With three service levels you can change on-the-fly, you get the performance that’s best suited to the application.

    Simple, Seamless Experience
    A seamless Azure experience for your file services workloads. You can deploy and manage Azure NetApp Files directory from the Azure Portal or automate using the Azure API or CLI integration.

    Secure Your Data
    Built-in capabilities ensure your data is protected at all times in Azure: from always-on encryption to point-in-time data copies (without added capacity costs). And with Microsoft‘s world class support, you can rest assured that you‘re in good hands with Azure.

    IBM Turbonomic is a performance and cost optimization platform for public, private, and hybrid clouds used by customers to assure application performance while eliminating inefficiencies by dynamically resourcing applications through automated actions. Common use cases include cloud cost optimization, cloud migration planning, data center modernization, FinOps acceleration, Kubernetes optimization, sustainable IT, and application resource management. Turbonomic customers report an average 33% reduction in cloud and infrastructure waste without impacting application performance, and return-on-investment of 471% over three years. Ready to take a closer look? Explore the interactive demo or start your free 30-day trial today!

    Sample Customers
    SAP, Restaurant Magic
    IBM, J.B. Hunt, BBC, The Capita Group, SulAmérica, Rabobank, PROS, ThinkON, O.C. Tanner Co.
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company25%
    Retailer17%
    Government8%
    Healthcare Company8%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization27%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Computer Software Company9%
    Financial Services Firm9%
    REVIEWERS
    Healthcare Company13%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Energy/Utilities Company7%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company18%
    Financial Services Firm16%
    Manufacturing Company9%
    Insurance Company6%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business22%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise67%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business14%
    Midsize Enterprise34%
    Large Enterprise52%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business17%
    Midsize Enterprise23%
    Large Enterprise60%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business18%
    Midsize Enterprise11%
    Large Enterprise71%
    Buyer's Guide
    Azure NetApp Files vs. IBM Turbonomic
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Azure NetApp Files vs. IBM Turbonomic and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
    771,157 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    Azure NetApp Files is ranked 3rd in Cloud Migration with 15 reviews while IBM Turbonomic is ranked 5th in Cloud Migration with 204 reviews. Azure NetApp Files is rated 8.2, while IBM Turbonomic is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Azure NetApp Files writes "We can expand our storage on-the-fly without the need to reprovision". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM Turbonomic writes "The solution reduced our operational expenditures and is able to identify points before we even noticed them ". Azure NetApp Files is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Nasuni and Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct, whereas IBM Turbonomic is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, Azure Cost Management, Cisco Intersight, VMWare Tanzu CloudHealth and VMware vSphere. See our Azure NetApp Files vs. IBM Turbonomic report.

    See our list of best Cloud Migration vendors.

    We monitor all Cloud Migration 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.