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 Services
Azure 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 Services
Azure NetApp Files
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Yes
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
AWS 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.
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 …
AWS stands out in its ability to adapt technology more quickly. All the new features, first adapted by AWS, make it the market leader. The key metrics, such as MTTR, are among the best among all other cloud service providers. The AWS dashboard and analytics features are very …
Amazon Web Services Lambda supports more triggers, richer language/runtime support, and has tighter integrations with Amazon Web Services, as compared to Azure/Google Cloud functions.Amazon Web Services also has better global infrastructure, with 33 regions and 105 availability …
We tried various other cloud providers and features provided by them. Many of the cloud providers have similar features but there are few factors which make Amazon Web Services cloud as preferable choice of our bank are cost, location of Amazon Web Services datacenter where it …
Apart from Amazon Web Services, we use Microsoft Azure in some of our projects. I have some basic experience in Google Cloud Platform (GCP) as well. If given a choice, I would prefer using Amazon Web Services over Azure or GCP. I find provisioning of resources relatively faster …
Amazon Web Services is better among all of them due to its performance, stability, security and navigation. It effectively saves the cost and provides better facilities than the other competitors. It plays great role when it comes to user friendly interface. It also provided …
AWS has the largest market share and most established and over 200 services for diverse needs. AWS has a very power user interface and pay as you go work well that others. AWS has the by far largest network of data centers for low latency and high availability. The regular …
Better global availability and use across industries. AWS has a great ecosystem of experts, developers, solution architects and it helps to get to know them at various AWS events across the world
Amazon Web Services is much more mature than all of the cloud service providers out in the market. It has 300+ services that solve almost all of your cloud problems.
Compared to other providers like Google Cloud Platform(GCP) and Microsoft Azure, [Amazon Web Services] has a wider range of services, which help you easier implement the solution you want. Also, they have been in the market for more years than their competitors. Moreover, they …
Amazon SageMaker is being extensively used by our R&D department for machine learning models development and research purposes. We work in Jupyter notebooks hosted on SageMaker notebook instances rather than notebooks hosted in local machines by doing so most ML algorithms …
I feel AWS usage of services by global clients has been the most compared to Azure or Openshift. AWS service offering's and usage are economical and much more secured. Its has build an ecosystem of providing all the services capabilities under one umbrella . It provides …
The decision was made to go with AWS because of name recognition and familiarity by contractors we hired. I checked out Google Compute Engine a few years ago, and it did have similar option set, however Google in general was behind Amazon's offerings.
Amazon Web Services fits best for all levels of organisations like startup, mid level or enterprise. The services are easy to use and doesn't require a high level of understanding as you can learn via blogs or youtube videos. AWS is Reasonable in cost as the plan is pay as you …
Amazon Web Services is well suited when we have a huge amount of data to store, process, manipulate and get meaningful information out of. It is also suitable when we need very fast data retrieval from the database. They provide a superior product at a fair price which allows …
Both the services are in the field for quite sometime. And the biggest competitor of Amazon Web Services is Microsoft Azure. Though, Azure easily connects with Microsoft services like a jelly, even in AWS its so easy. And the best thing is due to its vast variety community …
Amazon Web Services has a much more seasoned and known set of tools. The learning resources and documentation is much more prevalent and applicable to more scenarios which definitely helps with implementation. Google cloud does offer comparable products, and the user interface …
We evaluated Google Cloud and Azure at the beginning of our cloud journey but at that time, AWS was so far ahead of the other public cloud providers that there was no question about whether or not to go with AWS. They have the broadest catalog of services and their support is …
We have investigated Azure as well, for this specific need it made the most sense to go with [Amazon Web Services], the design was much simpler to get going. We have also used Azure for some of the other deployments that we have done with SaaS systems. These are the two …
Our tech team was comfortable with Amazon Web Services and that is why we started with Amazon Web Services. In the meantime, we searched for other services like Amazon Web Services but it seems that facilities like Elastic Bean and the first year free made us stick to Amazon …
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 …
The solution is amazing. It scales up and down, which is quite unique for a cloud solution and also it is billed to you on a per-hour basis, which provides a great opportunity to save the cost when you don't need it. Compared to others, we really liked that option for Azure …
Azure NetApp Files is very well integrated with Microsoft Azure, we use the same request methods that everyone knows from Azure. NetApp and Microsoft has built a very efficient solution that allows you to transfer virtually any service to the Microsoft public cloud. Azure …
We briefly looked at Amazon Elastic File System. From the small amount of research we did, Amazon EFS was comparable, but in the end we already had a NetApp infrastructure and were a Microsoft shop, so melding them together using Azure NetApp Files made sense.
I did not have a say in the selection process, but I am a satisfied user. I have used and tried other products or cloud storage applications; however, I was not impressed, as many of them have limited functionality and have some issues with security. My department was in need …
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.