Amazon Web Services vs. Azure NetApp Files

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Amazon Web Services
Score 8.6 out of 10
N/A
Amazon Web Services (AWS) is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud computing services. With over 165 services offered, AWS services can provide users with a comprehensive suite of infrastructure and computing building blocks and tools.
$0
per month
Azure NetApp Files
Score 9.6 out of 10
N/A
Azure NetApp Files is a Microsoft Azure file storage service built on NetApp technology, giving users the file capabilities in Azure that core business applications require, with pricing plans for different performance tiers.
$21,474,836.48
per month
Pricing
Amazon Web ServicesAzure NetApp Files
Editions & Modules
Free Tier
$0
per month
Basic Environment
$100 - $200
per month
Intermediate Environment
$250 - $600
per month
Advanced Environment
$600-$2500
per month
Restore
$0.02/GiB
per month
Backup
$0.05/GiB
per month
Cross Region Replication Daily - Replication frequency is once a day
$0.11/GiB
per month
Cross Region Replication Hourly - Replication frequency is every 1 hour
$0.12/GiB
per month
Cross Region Replication Minutes - Replication frequency is every 10 mins
$0.14/GiB
per month
Standard Storage
$0.14746 per GiB
per month
Premium Storage
$0.29419 per GiB
per month
Ultra Storage
$0.39274 per GiB
per month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon Web ServicesAzure NetApp Files
Free Trial
YesYes
Free/Freemium Version
YesNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsAWS allows a “save when you commit” option that offers lower prices when you sign up for a 1- or 3- year term that includes an AWS service or category of services.Azure NetApp Files (ANF) cloud file storage service is charged per hour based on the provisioned ANF capacity. Customers can provision a minimum of 4TiB of ANF capacity and then add additional provision capacity in the increments of 1TiB. Cross Region Replication pricing varies by the desired replication frequency per unit of data, and the region of the destination volume.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon Web ServicesAzure NetApp Files
Features
Amazon Web ServicesAzure NetApp Files
Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)
Comparison of Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) features of Product A and Product B
Amazon Web Services
8.2
Ratings
2% above category average
Azure NetApp Files
7.7
Ratings
4% below category average
Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime9.30 Ratings8.10 Ratings
Dynamic scaling9.00 Ratings7.10 Ratings
Elastic load balancing9.70 Ratings8.10 Ratings
Pre-configured templates7.40 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Monitoring tools7.00 Ratings7.10 Ratings
Pre-defined machine images6.50 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Operating system support8.20 Ratings8.10 Ratings
Security controls8.30 Ratings7.10 Ratings
Automation8.70 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Amazon Web ServicesAzure NetApp Files
Small Businesses
DigitalOcean Droplets
DigitalOcean Droplets
Score 8.7 out of 10
DigitalOcean Droplets
DigitalOcean Droplets
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
SAP on IBM Cloud
SAP on IBM Cloud
Score 9.5 out of 10
SAP on IBM Cloud
SAP on IBM Cloud
Score 9.5 out of 10
Enterprises
SAP on IBM Cloud
SAP on IBM Cloud
Score 9.5 out of 10
SAP on IBM Cloud
SAP on IBM Cloud
Score 9.5 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon Web ServicesAzure NetApp Files
Likelihood to Recommend
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
9.4
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.4
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Availability
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.2
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Online Training
7.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
10.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon Web ServicesAzure NetApp Files
Likelihood to Recommend
We are using RDS for the database services. With RDS, we don't have to manage much, as most of the DBA tasks are automated. For development purposes, we are using Kubernetes pods, which makes it easy to deploy applications and scale up as needed. AWS integration with in-house applications is seamless, making it easy to keep a data-sensitive application on-premises while still utilizing AWS services.
Read full review
For us, with Azure NetApp Files, the ease of use has been big. We have an operations organization where ease of use is key--also it simplifies migration to the cloud. Azure NetApp Files eliminates a common cloud-first barrier by creating the right infrastructure environment for agencies' resources, budgets, and skillsets. We would like to be able to version the files that are coming in. 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. They could probably improve the versioning and other advanced features. The replication is not available in all the Azure Availability Zones.
Read full review
Pros
  • Starting an instance and accessing it for testing purpose, demo or production deployment its always easy.
  • All the things which are available over AWS are pretty well managed and easy to use.
  • You might find everything you required for an product and other development over AWS.
  • Its suitable for both either an enterprise or an startup
  • Various resources and documentation are available in case you struck somewhere.
Read full review
  • We have found that it scales very well. In some cases we had a large existing storage infrastructure and were able to migrate it while other times we started from scratch with low storage demands and Azure NetApp Files fit the bill each time.
  • We have been impressed with the replication capabailities.
  • The read and write speed when interacting with files is a major asset.
Read full review
Cons
  • The AWS Management Console can be overwhelming. so a better dashboard and organizing it would improve usability.
  • The pricing models are complex. We need a more clear price calculators and cost management tools to manage our expenses better.
  • Enhancements in cross service compatibility and easier third party integrations could streamline workflow.
  • Simplifying model training in SageMaker and improving IAM for granular access control would make AWS more user friendly
Read full review
  • Backup/files versioning still needs to be improved
  • Netapp/Storage administrators may need some time to adapt managing it through Azure Portal interface, it can be really confusing sometimes
  • Reporting/data intelligence solutions would be a great addition
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
I would gladly rely on AWS for any large-scale application deployment. For prototyping and small-scale applications, a more heavily managed environment on top of the 'bare metal' virtual infrastructure, such as Heroku or Elastic Bean Stalk, is probably a more productive approach in most cases
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
Amazon Web Services is a great tool when it comes to middle size organizations like us. It provides multiple tools and functionalities in low costs. The best feature we have to pay as we go. No financial burden on company for the unused instances. It also comes with greater level of security such as two level authorization such as multi factor authorization.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Reliability and Availability
Availability is very good, with the exception of occasional spectacular outages.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Performance
AWS does not provide the raw performance that you can get by building your own custom infrastructure. However, it is often the case that the benefits of specialized, high-performance hardware do not necessarily outweigh the significant extra cost and risk. Performance as perceived by the user is very different from raw throughput.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
The customer support of Amazon Web Services are quick in their responses. I appreciate its entire team, which works amazingly, and provides professional support. AWS is a great tool, indeed, to provide customers a suitable way to
immediately search for their compatible software's and also to guide them in a
good direction. Moreover, this product is a good suggestion for every type of
company because of its affordability and ease of use.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
The API's were very well documented and was Janova's main point of entry into the services.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
In my personal experience, AWS is superior to both GCP and Azure in the majority of usable applications. GCP suffers from the near total misunderstanding of how support system is even supposed to work, and while _some_ services are pretty nifty and well-polished, some are mindbogglingly designed black boxes with self-conflicting documentation. Some of it comes from having legacy systems, sure, but AWS somehow manages, even having a rather big lead start. Azure, from my limited experience, is limited to people somehow coerced into its usage by external constraints. That being said, IF you can design and implement something there, it will probably run fine.
Read full review
We tried the same with Azure File Share (Azure Storage Account), but it has a really small limit (5TB per share). It didnt fulfilled our requirements, as we have some on-prem shares with 60+TB each, still to be migrated. We have also evaluated a different approach, which is Komprise archiving solution, to archive older files to Azure BLOBS and free up some space on the on-prem storages to accomodate new data.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Provisioning resources like large database instances is really quick. We can easily scale our instances up or down as per need.
  • Storing files in S3 instead of onprem NAS drives is much more economical, especially for the files stored in glacier deep archive for compliance purposes.
  • Backup snapshots of EBS volumes and RDS instances may increase the cost of cloud if not cleaned up properly.
Read full review
  • 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.
  • Its security and ease of use are most valuable.
  • It is stable and scalable.
Read full review
ScreenShots