NetApp Global File Cache vs Tiger Bridge
| NetApp Global File Cache | Tiger Bridge | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | No | No |
| Free trial | No | Yes |
| Paid from | — | $0.01/mo |
| Open source | No | No |
| Platforms | Linux, self-hosted, Windows | Windows |
| Deployment model | virtual | hybrid |
| Global namespace | Yes | Yes |
| Local caching | Yes | Yes |
| Supported protocols | SMB/CIFS | SMB/CIFS, NFS, S3-compatible object storage |
| Cloud storage targets | Azure NetApp Files; Cloud Volumes ONTAP; Cloud Volume Services | Amazon S3, Microsoft Azure Blob Storage, Google Cloud Storage, IBM Cloud Object Storage, Huawei Cloud, Backblaze B2, Google Drive, LYVE Cloud, Wasabi, S3-compatible object storage |
| Free plan | — | No |
| Paid from | — | 0.006 /mo |
| Edge synchronization | — | Yes |
Both are listed in Best Cloud Storage Gateway Software. On Inferse, Tiger Bridge scores higher on our published basis.