Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) vs. Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Amazon RDS
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Amazon Relational Database Service (Amazon RDS) is a database-as-a-service (DBaaS) from Amazon Web Services.N/A
Amazon S3
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Amazon S3 is a cloud-based object storage service from Amazon Web Services. It's key features are storage management and monitoring, access management and security, data querying, and data transfer.N/A
Pricing
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Editions & Modules
Amazon RDS for PostgreSQL
$0.24 ($0.48)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
Amazon RDS for MariaDB
$0.25 ($0.50)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
Amazon RDS for MySQL
$0.29 ($0.58)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
Amazon RDS for Oracle
$0.482 ($0.964)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
Amazon RDS for SQL Server
$1.02 ($1.52)
per hour, R5 Large (R5 Extra Large)
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon RDSAmazon S3
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeOptionalNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Considered Both Products
Amazon RDS
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) stands out among similar products due to its seamless integration with other AWS services, automated backups, and multi-AZ deployments for high availability. Its support for various database engines, such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, and …
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
With products like Google Cloud SQL, Azure SQL Database, AWS RDS stacks up quite well in all features. Features like licensing, performance, security comes to my mind the most. Another aspect is AWS's global reach.
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
Although the Rackspace service is not comparable, even though it is very good, it requires a lot of administration on my part.
Regarding Atlas, although it is not the same as RDS in terms of provisioning and administration panel, I mention it because I found it simpler and more …
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
Previously used Media Temple database hosting (now GoDaddy). While that endeavor was also successful, the AWS RDS is more secure, with higher availability and better documentation.
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
AWS was selected by the customer so we moved to RDS for some Db's where its compatible to make is more maintenance friendly
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
I selected AWS RDS over Azure because of the [number] of products AWS has that work together. The cost for RDS was cheaper than Azure's SQL also. I use Azure for MSSQL workloads and AWS for MySQL workloads. Probably the main reason was we wanted to use S3 and Azure doesn't have …
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
Amazon RDS provides more configuration ability, and also it's scalable and highly available for real-time response to the complex query.
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
Though you could get similar functionality using Docker, Amazon RDS offers a more comprehensive SaaS solution.

With Docker, you still need to have an EC2 instance to install the Docker and manage backup scripts using EC2 snapshots or S3. But RDS provides that solution …
Amazon S3
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is the only AWS offering for object storage. DynamoDB is fantastic for unstructured data but does not handle object storage. The relational database service (RDS) is excellent but only applies to use cases with structured table data, and does …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
We originally were looking between FTP and Amazon S3 as a storage location for customer-created files. FTP had been used for years, but as it was a new product were didn't understand how much utilization would be needed. Amazon S3 won out because it was easier to integrate into …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
As most of our work loads and the under laying platforms are build on EMR, Spark and AWS Lambda, we did not find HDFS a suitable solution to have all of our data in. HDFS was very costly as we had to maintain data nodes only for the sole purpose of maintaining the extra storage …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
We chose S3 over Azure Storage because it integrated very easily and quickly with our existing AWS environment. S3 pricing was also cheaper than Azure at the time. S3 is also more mature and has been on the market 10 years longer than Azure Storage. Amazon also offers a higher …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
I did not review or test with any other services. We started this business as a loyal and excited AWS customer and we remain the same today.
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
I haven't been personally involved in the decision to use S3, but in comparison to Dropbox or Google Drive, this offers a less robust UI to modify things, while being a cheaper storage mechanism over the rest.
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Amazon S3 is where you want to default to if you want to store a large amount of data. Compared to formatted data that you can store in Amazon RDS or DynamoDB, you can store your data in any format you want on S3. And the data retention policy can be really useful if you use S3 …
Top Pros
Top Cons
Features
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Data Center Backup
Comparison of Data Center Backup features of Product A and Product B
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
-
Ratings
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
9.1
8 Ratings
9% above category average
Universal recovery00 Ratings9.17 Ratings
Instant recovery00 Ratings8.37 Ratings
Recovery verification00 Ratings8.45 Ratings
Business application protection00 Ratings8.65 Ratings
Multiple backup destinations00 Ratings9.47 Ratings
Incremental backup identification00 Ratings9.33 Ratings
Backup to the cloud00 Ratings9.58 Ratings
Deduplication and file compression00 Ratings8.73 Ratings
Snapshots00 Ratings9.65 Ratings
Flexible deployment00 Ratings9.48 Ratings
Management dashboard00 Ratings8.08 Ratings
Platform support00 Ratings9.08 Ratings
Retention options00 Ratings10.05 Ratings
Encryption00 Ratings9.86 Ratings
Enterprise Backup
Comparison of Enterprise Backup features of Product A and Product B
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
-
Ratings
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
8.8
8 Ratings
7% above category average
Continuous data protection00 Ratings9.58 Ratings
Replication00 Ratings9.47 Ratings
Operational reporting and analytics00 Ratings8.48 Ratings
Malware protection00 Ratings8.02 Ratings
Multi-location capabilities00 Ratings9.68 Ratings
Ransomware Recovery00 Ratings8.01 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Small Businesses
Google Cloud SQL
Google Cloud SQL
Score 8.8 out of 10
Axcient x360Recover
Axcient x360Recover
Score 9.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Google Cloud SQL
Google Cloud SQL
Score 8.8 out of 10
Druva Security Cloud
Druva Security Cloud
Score 9.8 out of 10
Enterprises
SAP IQ
SAP IQ
Score 9.0 out of 10
Druva Security Cloud
Druva Security Cloud
Score 9.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Likelihood to Recommend
8.7
(130 ratings)
9.4
(74 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.5
(5 ratings)
10.0
(1 ratings)
Usability
8.4
(7 ratings)
8.0
(12 ratings)
Availability
9.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
7.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.6
(13 ratings)
9.8
(21 ratings)
Online Training
10.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
9.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Likelihood to Recommend
Amazon AWS
If your application needs a relational data store and uses other AWS services, AWS RDS is a no-brainer. It offers all the traditional database features, makes it a snap to set up, creates cross-region replication, has advanced security, built-in monitoring, and much more at a very good price. You can also set up streaming to a data lake using various other AWS services on your RDS.
Read full review
Amazon AWS
Amazon S3 is a great service to safely backup your data where redundancy is guaranteed and the cost is fair. We use Amazon S3 for data that we backup and hope we never need to access but in the case of a catastrophic or even small slip of the finger with the delete command we know our data and our client's data is safely backed up by Amazon S3. Transferring data into Amazon S3 is free but transferring data out has an associated, albeit low, cost per GB. This needs to be kept in mind if you plan on transferring out a lot of data frequently. There may be other cost effective options although Amazon S3 prices are really low per GB. Transferring 150TB would cost approximately $50 per month.
Read full review
Pros
Amazon AWS
  • Automated Database Management: We use it for streamlining routine tasks like software patching and database backups.
  • Scalability on Demand: we use it to handle traffic spikes, scaling both vertically and horizontally.
  • Database Engine Compatibility: It works amazingly with multiple database engines used by different departments within our organization including MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server, and Oracle.
  • Monitoring: It covers our extensive monitoring and logging, and also has great compatibility with Amazon CloudWatch
Read full review
Amazon AWS
  • Fantastic developer API, including AWS command line and library utilities.
  • Strong integration with the AWS ecosystem, especially with regards to access permissions.
  • It's astoundingly stable- you can trust it'll stay online and available for anywhere in the world.
  • Its static website hosting feature is a hidden gem-- it provides perhaps the cheapest, most stable, most high-performing static web hosting available in PaaS.
Read full review
Cons
Amazon AWS
  • It is a little difficult to configure and connect to an RDS instance. The integration with ECS can be made more seamless.
  • Exploring features within RDS is not very easy and intuitive. Either a human friendly documentation should be added or the User Interface be made intuitive so that people can explore and find features on their own.
  • There should be tools to analyze cost and minimize it according to the usage.
Read full review
Amazon AWS
  • Web console can be very confusing and challenging to use, especially for new users
  • Bucket policies are very flexible, but the composability of the security rules can be very confusing to get right, often leading to security rules in use on buckets other than what you believe they are
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Amazon AWS
We do renew our use of Amazon Relational Database Service. We don't have any problems faced with RDS in place. RDS has taken away lot of overhead of hosting database, managing the database and keeping a team just to manage database. Even the backup, security and recovery another overhead that has been taken away by RDS. So, we will keep on using RDS.
Read full review
Amazon AWS
Due to princing, availability and scalability.
Read full review
Usability
Amazon AWS
I've been using AWS Relational Database Services in several projects in different environments and from the AWS products, maybe this one together to EC2 are my favourite. They deliver what they promise. Reliable, fast, easy and with a fair price (in comparison to commercial products which have obscure license agreements).
Read full review
Amazon AWS
It is tricky to get it all set up correctly with policies and getting the IAM settings right. There is also a lot of lifecycle config you can do in terms of moving data to cold/glacier storage. It is also not to be confused with being a OneDrive or SharePoint replacement, they each have their own place in our environment, and S3 is used more by the IT team and accessed by our PHP applications. It is not necessarily used by an average everyday user for storing their pictures or documents, etc.
Read full review
Support Rating
Amazon AWS
I have only had good experiences in working with AWS support. I will admit that my experience comes from the benefit of having a premium tier of support but even working with free-tier accounts I have not had problems getting help with AWS products when needed. And most often, the docs do a pretty good job of explaining how to operate a service so a quick spin through the docs has been useful in solving problems.
Read full review
Amazon AWS
AWS has always been quick to resolve any support ticket raised. S3 is no exception. We have only ever used it once to get a clarification regarding the costs involved when data is transferred between S3 and other AWS services or the public internet. We got a response from AWS support team within a day.
Read full review
Online Training
Amazon AWS
the online training & digital content available on the web from AWS was having sufficient information to deploy and run the service
Read full review
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Amazon AWS
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) stands out among similar products due to its seamless integration with other AWS services, automated backups, and multi-AZ deployments for high availability. Its support for various database engines, such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Oracle, provides flexibility. Additionally, RDS offers managed security features, including encryption and IAM integration, enhancing data protection. The pay-as-you-go pricing model makes it cost-effective. Overall, Amazon RDS excels in ease of use, scalability, and a comprehensive feature set, making it a top choice for organizations seeking a reliable and scalable managed relational database service in the cloud.
Read full review
Amazon AWS
Overall, we found that Amazon S3 provided a lot of backend features Google Cloud Storage (GCS) simply couldn't compare to. GCS was way more expensive and really did not live up to it. In terms of setup, Google Cloud Storage may have Amazon S3 beat, however, as it is more of a pseudo advanced version of Google Drive, that was not a hard feat for it to achieve. Overall, evaluating GCS, in comparison to S3, was an utter disappointment.
Read full review
Return on Investment
Amazon AWS
  • The overall cost increases, but we spect this and we can mitigate other risks.
  • Is easy to work from the cloud. Is reliable, but we keep our local solution as well where RDS works quite good.
  • RDS allow us to focurs on owr objetives instead of the other matters regarding databases.
Read full review
Amazon AWS
  • It practically eliminated some real heavy storage servers from our premises and reduced maintenance cost.
  • The excellent durability and reliability make sure the return of money you invested in.
  • If the objects which are not active or stale, one needs to remove them. Those objects keep adding cost to each billing cycle. If you are handling a really big infrastructure, sometimes this creates quite a huge bill for preserving un-necessary objects/documents.
Read full review
ScreenShots

Amazon RDS Screenshots

Screenshot of A look inside the RDS console.