TrustRadius: an HG Insights company

Amazon S3 Glacier vs. Barracuda Message Archiver

Save this comparison

Save this comparison

Add Product

Recommended Comparisons

    Overview
    ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price

    Amazon S3 Glacier

    Score9 out of 10
    N/AThe Amazon S3 Glacier storage classes are purpose-built for data archiving, providing a low cost archive storage in the cloud. According to AWS, S3 Glacier storage classes provide virtually unlimited scalability and are designed for 99.999999999% (11 nines) of data durability, and they provide fast access to archive data and low cost.

    $0

    Per GB Per Month

    Barracuda Message Archiver

    Score7.3 out of 10
    N/AThe Barracuda Message Archiver is designed to help organizations reduce email storage requirements, meet demanding compliance requirements, and address e-discovery requests easily and effectively. Integration with the Barracuda Cloud provides long-term email storage and backup.N/A
    Pricing
    Amazon S3 GlacierBarracuda Message Archiver
    Editions & Modules
    Bulk Retrieval Pricing
    $0.0025
    Per GB Per Month
    Storage Pricing
    $0.004
    Per GB Per Month
    Retrieval Pricing
    $0.01
    Per GB Per Month
    Expedited Retrieval Pricing
    $0.03
    Per GB Per Month
    No answers on this topic
    Offerings
    Pricing Offerings
    Amazon S3 GlacierBarracuda Message Archiver
    Free Trial
    YesYes
    Free/Freemium Version
    NoNo
    Premium Consulting/Integration Services
    NoNo
    Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
    Additional Details
    More Pricing Information
    Best Alternatives
    Amazon S3 GlacierBarracuda Message Archiver
    Small Businesses
    Google Vault
    Score9.5 out of 10
    Amazon S3 Glacier
    Score9 out of 10
    Medium-sized Companies
    Google Vault
    Score9.5 out of 10
    Google Vault
    Score9.5 out of 10
    Enterprises
    Microsoft Exchange Online Archiving
    Score8.4 out of 10
    Microsoft Exchange Online Archiving
    Score8.4 out of 10
    All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
    User Ratings
    Amazon S3 GlacierBarracuda Message Archiver
    Likelihood to Recommend
    9.0
    (8 ratings)
    7.3
    (2 ratings)
    Likelihood to Renew
    -
    (0 ratings)
    9.0
    (2 ratings)
    Usability
    6.0
    (1 ratings)
    6.4
    (1 ratings)
    Support Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    8.2
    (1 ratings)
    Implementation Rating
    -
    (0 ratings)
    7.3
    (1 ratings)
    User Testimonials
    Amazon S3 GlacierBarracuda Message Archiver
    Likelihood to Recommend
    Amazon AWS
    If your organization has a lot of archival data that it needs to be backed up for safekeeping, where it won't be touched except in a dire emergency, Amazon Glacier is perfect. In our case, we had a client that generates many TB of video and photo data at annual events and wanted to retain ALL of it, pre- and post- edit for potential use in a future museum. Using the Snowball device, we were able to move hundreds of TB of existing media data that was previously housed on multiple Thunderbolt drives, external RAIDs, etc, in an organized manner, to Amazon Glacier. Then, we were able to setup CloudBerry Backup on their production computers to continually backup any new media that they generated during their annual events.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Barracuda Networks Inc.
    This is the perfect solution for a quick implementation of archivation. You configure it once and it keeps on going. Users do not need to interact to archive, only to find things back.
    Read full review
    Pros
    Amazon AWS
    • Cheap storage of backup data.
    • Can be used as a part of the entire suite of tools from Amazon, without requiring you to leave the familiar stack.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Barracuda Networks Inc.
    • Archiving with journaling.
    • Search with WebClient.
    • Search with Add-In.
    • Stubbing.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Cons
    Amazon AWS
    • Sometime due to slow drives there are operation failure noticed by us in testing
    • Cost of restoring data is high and if you have regular restoring them it is not good option and slow as well.
    • While we were setting up the system we took some support from AWS and in many cases their answers were not up to the mark.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Barracuda Networks Inc.
    • the folder structure of the mailbox is harder to keep up with
    • it is a bit confusing when you search for non email items, like contacts.
    Read full review
    Likelihood to Renew
    Amazon AWS
    No answers on this topic
    Barracuda Networks Inc.
    I would give a ten...but I don´t know the benefit in 2 years between Barracuda in Cloud and Microsoft in Situ Mailarchive. Lets see then!
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Usability
    Amazon AWS
    It is difficult to delete the data as you have to wait for inventory and then bucket modification has to expire.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Barracuda Networks Inc.
    The product is good but for this specific product there are often some technical problems. Mostly support in Vienna can solve them soon. The development is very, very slow. I have asked for some changes. They gave the okay to make it with a feature request...but 3 years later there is still no code for my problems. Not even one feature request was done.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Support Rating
    Amazon AWS
    No answers on this topic
    Barracuda Networks Inc.
    The support in Vienna is very, very great. They are fast and can support almost all problems by themselves. Especially Mr. Michael Holzer is a very high specialist and you can ask him almost everything. Just write a mail to emeasupport and you will be sure, that some minutes or hours later you will get a kind and professional call.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Implementation Rating
    Amazon AWS
    No answers on this topic
    Barracuda Networks Inc.
    Think about using offline archives. They make a lot of trouble. Better train your users to use the Outlook Addin Search without using offline archives, which need a lot of power, network and harddrive space. Headers only functionality was promised years ago but is still not implemented.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Alternatives Considered
    Amazon AWS
    Since the rest of our infrastructure is in Amazon AWS, coding for sending data to Glacier just makes sense. The others are great as well, for their specific needs and uses, but having *another* third-party software to manage, be billed for, and learn/utilize can be costly in money and time.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Barracuda Networks Inc.
    It was a lot cheaper, i mean a awfull lot.
    Read full review
    Return on Investment
    Amazon AWS
    • We seldom need to access our data in Glacier; this means that it is a fraction of the cost of S3, including the infrequent-access storage class.
    • Transitioning data to Glacier is managed by AWS. We don't need our engineers to build or maintain log pipelines.
    • Configuring lifecycle policies for S3 and Glacier is simple; it takes our engineers very little time, and there is little risk of errant configuration.
    Incentivized
    Read full review
    Barracuda Networks Inc.
    • i had no negative impact.
    Read full review
    ScreenShots