Google Cloud NetApp Volumes

Name: Google Cloud NetApp Volumes
Brand: Google
Rating: 4.3 (16 reviews)

Google Cloud NetApp Volumes is a fully managed file (and some block) storage service on Google Cloud that delivers NetApp ONTAP-derived data management features, exposes standard protocols (NFS/SMB/iSCSI), and is designed to support enterprise lift-and-shift workloads without application refactoring.

Est 1998|Valuation $4081.3B|Raised $26.1M|1 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 41.9M|Website|Web traffic 3.3M|FTEs 198,933|HQ Mountain View, California, US

MarketsCloud Infrastructure Providers (IaaS/PaaS)

Platform CoversData Security Platforms Backup and Data Protection

01Competitive Landscape

Competitive Landscape

| Aspect | Google Cloud NetApp Volumes | Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP | Azure NetApp Files | |--------|-----------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------| | Starting Price | Published pricing based on usage or provisioned capacity and service level; consult vendor pricing for regional SKUs | Published usage-based pricing that varies by storage type, throughput, and backup options; consult vendor for regional rates | Published capacity-based pricing with service-level and regional variations | | Recommended for | Enterprises on Google Cloud needing ONTAP-style snapshots/clones/replication and multiprotocol support in a managed service | AWS customers wanting ONTAP functionality in a managed FSx service with AWS integrations | Azure customers requiring low-latency enterprise NAS features for workloads such as SAP and VDI | | Key Strength | Integration with Google Cloud management planes and ONTAP-derived data management features; PSA networking and multiple service levels including Flex | Mature AWS managed service with ONTAP ecosystem integration and native AWS service integrations | Strong performance characteristics and common selection for SAP/VDI workloads on Azure | | Key Weakness | Provisioned pool economics and networking model constraints; smaller public review volume for the specific managed offering | AWS-specific integrations may limit attractiveness for non-AWS environments; cost model complexity | Capacity and cost model can lead to overprovisioning and higher costs for some workloads | - Direct competitors and differentiators - Google Cloud Filestore (native) - Often selected when requirements are limited to managed NFS with straightforward operational models. - Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP - Provides a managed ONTAP offering in AWS with deep AWS integration; relevant for AWS-centric organizations. - Azure NetApp Files - Enterprise NAS option on Azure often selected for performance-sensitive SMB/NFS workloads. - Feature comparison (where NetApp Volumes excels vs trade-offs) - Areas of relative strength - ONTAP-derived data management (snapshots, cloning, replication) - Multiprotocol support (NFS/SMB; iSCSI is documented) - CMEK support via Cloud KMS - Trade-offs / areas to evaluate - Native file services may be simpler and more cost-efficient for basic file sharing needs. - NetApp Volumes has a smaller footprint of independent public reviews compared with larger hyperscaler-native services. - Pricing comparison (value vs alternatives) - Managed ONTAP-like offerings and ANF/FSx ONTAP typically use provisioned capacity or provisioned performance constructs; these approaches can be cost-effective for consistently high-utilization, high-performance shared storage but less so for bursty or low-utilization shares. - Native file services (Filestore/EFS/Azure Files) can be less expensive and simpler for basic use cases but may lack some ONTAP-specific features. - Customer testimonials comparing to competitors - Community discussions note that managed ONTAP services can be preferred over self-managed appliances for reduced operational burden, while native services are sometimes selected for cost or simplicity.

01Competitive Landscape

Competitive Landscape

Aspect	Google Cloud NetApp Volumes	Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP	Azure NetApp Files
Starting Price	Published pricing based on usage or provisioned capacity and service level; consult vendor pricing for regional SKUs	Published usage-based pricing that varies by storage type, throughput, and backup options; consult vendor for regional rates	Published capacity-based pricing with service-level and regional variations
Recommended for	Enterprises on Google Cloud needing ONTAP-style snapshots/clones/replication and multiprotocol support in a managed service	AWS customers wanting ONTAP functionality in a managed FSx service with AWS integrations	Azure customers requiring low-latency enterprise NAS features for workloads such as SAP and VDI
Key Strength	Integration with Google Cloud management planes and ONTAP-derived data management features; PSA networking and multiple service levels including Flex	Mature AWS managed service with ONTAP ecosystem integration and native AWS service integrations	Strong performance characteristics and common selection for SAP/VDI workloads on Azure
Key Weakness	Provisioned pool economics and networking model constraints; smaller public review volume for the specific managed offering	AWS-specific integrations may limit attractiveness for non-AWS environments; cost model complexity	Capacity and cost model can lead to overprovisioning and higher costs for some workloads

Direct competitors and differentiators
- Google Cloud Filestore (native)
  - Often selected when requirements are limited to managed NFS with straightforward operational models.
- Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP
  - Provides a managed ONTAP offering in AWS with deep AWS integration; relevant for AWS-centric organizations.
- Azure NetApp Files
  - Enterprise NAS option on Azure often selected for performance-sensitive SMB/NFS workloads.
Feature comparison (where NetApp Volumes excels vs trade-offs)
- Areas of relative strength
  - ONTAP-derived data management (snapshots, cloning, replication)
  - Multiprotocol support (NFS/SMB; iSCSI is documented)
  - CMEK support via Cloud KMS
- Trade-offs / areas to evaluate
  - Native file services may be simpler and more cost-efficient for basic file sharing needs.
  - NetApp Volumes has a smaller footprint of independent public reviews compared with larger hyperscaler-native services.
Pricing comparison (value vs alternatives)
- Managed ONTAP-like offerings and ANF/FSx ONTAP typically use provisioned capacity or provisioned performance constructs; these approaches can be cost-effective for consistently high-utilization, high-performance shared storage but less so for bursty or low-utilization shares.
- Native file services (Filestore/EFS/Azure Files) can be less expensive and simpler for basic use cases but may lack some ONTAP-specific features.
Customer testimonials comparing to competitors
- Community discussions note that managed ONTAP services can be preferred over self-managed appliances for reduced operational burden, while native services are sometimes selected for cost or simplicity.

Aspect

Google Cloud NetApp Volumes

Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP

Azure NetApp Files

Starting Price

Published pricing based on usage or provisioned capacity and service level; consult vendor pricing for regional SKUs

Published usage-based pricing that varies by storage type, throughput, and backup options; consult vendor for regional rates

Published capacity-based pricing with service-level and regional variations

Recommended for

Enterprises on Google Cloud needing ONTAP-style snapshots/clones/replication and multiprotocol support in a managed service

AWS customers wanting ONTAP functionality in a managed FSx service with AWS integrations

Azure customers requiring low-latency enterprise NAS features for workloads such as SAP and VDI

Key Strength

Integration with Google Cloud management planes and ONTAP-derived data management features; PSA networking and multiple service levels including Flex

Mature AWS managed service with ONTAP ecosystem integration and native AWS service integrations

Strong performance characteristics and common selection for SAP/VDI workloads on Azure

Key Weakness

Provisioned pool economics and networking model constraints; smaller public review volume for the specific managed offering

AWS-specific integrations may limit attractiveness for non-AWS environments; cost model complexity

Capacity and cost model can lead to overprovisioning and higher costs for some workloads