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
Google Compute Engine
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Google Compute Engine is an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) product from Google Cloud. It provides virtual machines with carbon-neutral infrastructure which run on the same data centers that Google itself uses.
$0.01
Hour
Pricing
Azure NetApp Files
Google Compute Engine
Editions & Modules
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
Preemptible Price - Predefined Memory
0.000892 / GB
Hour
Three-year commitment price - Predefined Memory
$0.001907 / GB
Hour
One-year commitment price - Predefined Memory
$0.002669 / GB
Hour
On-demand price - Predefined Memory
$0.004237 / GB
Hour
Preemptible Price - Predefined vCPUs
0.006655 / vCPU
Hour
Three-year commitment price - Predefined vCPUS
$0.014225 / CPU
Hour
One-year commitment price - Predefined vCPUS
$0.019915 / vCPU
Hour
On-demand price - Predefined vCPUS
$0.031611 / vCPU
Hour
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure NetApp Files
Google Compute Engine
Free Trial
Yes
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
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.
Prices vary according to region (i.e US central, east, & west time zones). Google Compute Engine also offers a discounted rate for a 1 & 3 year commitment.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure NetApp Files
Google Compute Engine
Considered Both Products
Azure NetApp Files
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Azure NetApp Files
Attribution in Google Analytics (Adometry), Acoustic Content (formerly IBM Watson Content Hub) and Amazon Augmented AI (Amazon A2I)
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 …
Rather than saying GCE is better. I would say that depends on the business and technical requirements it might fit better than others. There is no silver bullet.
I actually prefer Azure's UI over Google Compute Engine's , but Google Compute Engine's pricings are way more competitive, which makes it the go-to choice for infrastracture low budget companies such as ours, since our core business is not IT or software development related
Cloud providers offering virtual machines are quite common. I think, Google, however, is arguably one of the top players in the market, with some of the largest (if not the largest) and most advanced server farms in the world. If you're looking for reliability and cost …
The perfect blend of setup flexibility, costing and trust of Google could be my answer to the comparison. This being a server backed service so, ruling out the functions. The Setup flexibility and speed set the GCE apart from Kubernetes. Compliance, regulation and the security …
We have tried using DigitalOcean droplets for some of our minor and non critical VMs. In our experience, Google Compute Engine fares well in comparison the DigitalOcean droplets as they provide better availability, better support and in general, a better experience.
As far as user-friendliness is concerned, I personally rank Google Cloud above both AWS and Azure. Their user interface makes it easy to manage, which is important.
I find Google Compute Engine to be much easier to use than Amazon's EC2 service. The console makes much more sense, permission management is much cleaner, and I'd say the other categories feel on par with EC2: performance, how fine-grained the settings are, connecting to …
The obvious and natural alternatives to GCE are AWS EC2 and Azure VMs. I would say all three are more similar than not. Picking one will most likely depend on what platform you're on already, where your running services are, and which one is more familiar to your team.
When configuring Amazon ECS, it is a bit confusing as you are not able to find the actual issue. You need to enable Additional AppInsights to get detailed level info, which is not a concern when configuring on the Instance Level. Moreover, Azure VM does not provide an …
The Google Cloud computing engine is fair at the top because it bills customers, automatic discounting for extended use, and how fast it can be turned on. We enjoy things around setting it up very easily via APIs and CLI commands, and with the always-on recommendations from …
I have utilised Google Compute Engine in addition to Amazon EC2. Both exhibit excellent performance in terms of consumption, speed, and efficiency.My decision to adopt Google Compute Engine was solely based on how user-friendly it is. more basic UI/UX than EC2.Google's customer …
Google Compute Engine provides on-demand computing resources that are easy to scale up or down according to my organization needs. This allows our business to quickly adapt to changes in demand without having to invest in additional hardware. It also offers a very competitive …
While Amazon EC2 is the best tool for developers to build an app and make it live, It has some downsides too. EC2 requires so much development while Google Compute Engine makes it easy to build an app within a days. EC2 pricing also relatively high compare to Google Compute …
GCE is available in 3 different regions whereas Ec2 is available in 11 different regions. The compute resources offered by the GCE has lower maximum capacity compared to AWS Ec2. The pricing model of GCE offers first 10 mins free and then charging in increments of 10 mins. Both …
I prefer the Compute Engine Over these as it provides us with Better Scalability, Performance, and Reliability Security-related Issues don't arise with the Compute Engine, but yes, in terms of accessing or running, it can be improved a bit as compared to EC2 offered by AWS.
the main reason of choosing GCE is availability and user friendly UI with a very good documentation and API explanations. Great visibility over the infra and security.
The features specific to Google Compute Engine vs Amazon EC2 along with cost and availability are comparable, there may be other services within the vendor which may mean that one is more suitable for specific applications than the other one. We have used both for different …
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.
It is excellent if you have any workloads that need raw computing or plan to have any state-full services running in your environment like DBs (for which you don't want to use Managed services), cache, etc. It also gives you complete control over which versions of software, OS, etc., you need, and thus, you can build anything and deploy it on GCE.
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.
A simple web-based interface that is a breeze to train new engineers to use. Our experienced engineers never have trouble finding or doing anything on GCE.
Sustained use and Committed use discounts mean we get top-tier VMs for an incredibly competitive price.
Wonderful identity and access management that gives us peace-of-mind when granting access to machines to contractors and other 3rd parties.
Fast VMs, lastest in hardware, and enough RAM to power even the hungriest of our services.
The L7 load balancer can be difficult to get set up. It's limited in its functionality, especially with the container engine.
It's hard to find certain objects on the web console. Often times the things I need to get to are buried in advanced menus.
Google's decision to only support MySQL on their relational DB service means that I have to manage Postgres instances in Compute on my own, managing everything from storage to backups.
Its pretty good, easy and good performance. Also, interface is very good for starters compared to competitors. Infra as Code (IaC) using Terraform even added easiness for creation, management and deletion of compute Virtual Machines (VM). Overall, very good and very easy cloud based compute platform which simplified infrastructure, very much recommend.
Having interacted with several cloud services, GCE stands out to me as more usable than most. The naming and locating of features is a little more intuitive than most I've interacted with, and hinting is also quite helpful. Getting staff up to speed has proven to be overall less painful than others.
Google Compute Engine works well for cloud project with lesser geographical audience. It sometimes gives error while everything is set up perfectly. We also keep on check any updates available because that's one reason of site getting down. Google Compute Engine is ultimately a top solution to build an app and publish it online within a few minutes
Google Compute Engine usually delivers good and predictable performance for our self-hosted stack of applications. However, when running n8n heavy workflows, even with a tunned instance configuration in docker, performance usually peaks usually due to memory usage. We often need to upgrade memory when we have heavier data processing and workflows. Other than that, in a normal usage, we don't really have any problems
The documentation needs to be better for intermediate users - There are first steps that one can easily follow, but after that, the documentation is often spotty or not in a form where one can follow the steps and accomplish the task. Also, the documentation and the product often go out of sync, where the commands from the documentation do not work with the current version of the product.
Google support was great and their presence on site was very helpful in dealing with various issues.
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.
When configuring Amazon ECS, it is a bit confusing as you are not able to find the actual issue. You need to enable Additional AppInsights to get detailed level info, which is not a concern when configuring on the Instance Level. Moreover, Azure VM does not provide an in-browser option; instead, it is Azure Bastion, but for that, you have to enable a dedicated subnet, which is a bit unnecessary.
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.
Scalability means flexibility and less upfront costs
Can become expensive when hard set compute requirements are clear, but things like Spot VMs can help here too, or just having your own infrastructure and scaling up with Google. This is for more advanced cases though
Ramp up time is long, but after that it is quick to do many things and ROI is awesome