Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
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
AWS Lambda
Score 8.3 out of 10
N/A
AWS Lambda is a serverless computing platform that lets users run code without provisioning or managing servers. With Lambda, users can run code for virtually any type of app or backend service—all with zero administration. It takes of requirements to run and scale code with high availability.
$NaN
Per 1 ms
Microsoft Azure
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft Azure is a cloud computing platform and infrastructure for building, deploying, and managing applications and services through a global network of Microsoft-managed datacenters.
$29
per month
Pricing
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)AWS LambdaMicrosoft Azure
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
128 MB
$0.0000000021
Per 1 ms
1024 MB
$0.0000000167
Per 1 ms
10240 MB
$0.0000001667
Per 1 ms
Developer
$29
per month
Standard
$100
per month
Professional Direct
$1000
per month
Basic
Free
per month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon S3AWS LambdaMicrosoft Azure
Free Trial
NoNoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNoYes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsThe free tier lets users have access to a variety of services free for 12 months with limited usage after making an Azure account.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)AWS LambdaMicrosoft Azure
Considered Multiple Products
Amazon S3
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)
S3 is excellent but has a different use case than ebs. As ebs can be used as a filesystem, s3 bucket stores objects
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Pricing and Cost Structure are best:Amazon S3:Offers multiple storage classes: Standard, Intelligent-Tiering, Standard-IA (Infrequent Access), One Zone-IA, Glacier, and Glacier Deep Archive while other were costly and figuring out the monthly costs were difficult. The …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
When we were implementation the solution of our issue then we find Azure and Google Cloud Storage platforms but we were unable to find the proper documentation for the platform as compared to S3, So we moved to S3 and discarded the other options. Cost wise there are only some …
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)
All other alternatives are also good but as our infrastructure was on AWS, Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) was a better choice due to its better integration with other AWS services. It was serving the purpose in an economical way. All of our needs were being fulfilled by …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Google Cloud Storage provides many of the same features as Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service), but they differ quite a bit in the database integrations they provide. The main reason we had to use Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is because our main infrastructure cloud …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
We initially looked at CloudBerry but they did not integrate into our NAS hardware out of the box like Amazon S3 did.
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
S3 provides an on-demand usage model for storage. You only pay for what you use. Nutanix is an on-premises solution and does not allow for usage-based pricing. Azure was less integrated with our current AWS workloads which helped drive our decision to use s3 with the Amazon …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Amazon S3 comes with all other services of AWS, all other services are very quick and secure with S3 storage, which is the best option for any application. Again, compared to other services like Azure or GCP, AWS provides more configuration and functions to host multi nature …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Some obvious ones are Google storage services like Drive, and their whole arsenal of services. Another could be the Office line where SharePoint and other programs can be used synchronously. I have seen other people use Windows Azure for storage needs similar to ours. We chose …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
S3 is much cheaper than the alternatives. And it's very easy to set up the billing.
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Amazon has had years of development in building their cloud solution. A few other vendors are playing catch up but that's always the case when you have the key to success. The saying goes " if you built it, they will come". :)

AWS Lambda
Chose AWS Lambda
AWS is a much more mature platform than Microsoft Azure but is a lot more rigid in the portability perspective. If you are in it for the long run then Lambda is great and the best choice.
Chose AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda is much easier to use than the near alternatives. It is so straightforward and lightweight it is my primary service for handling small transactions or triggers. The other services require more setup time and are more complex to use. AWS Lambda takes your code snippet …
Chose AWS Lambda
When we use Lambda, we do not need to worry about the infrastructure and costs. AWS can handle it all on its own. For an optimum use case, one can always use AWS Lambda along with API Gateway and Route 53 for the best use case. Cloudwatch can help you identify any issues and …
Chose AWS Lambda
We really did not evaluate them against other products except a little Google research, we are a centralized AWS customer so it was a smooth and simple (even if blind) decision for us.
Chose AWS Lambda
These are all AWS sister products, so I wouldn't say they are competitors but tools in the same box. They all work quite well together and I would say combined they are greater than the sum of their parts. Cloudformation (and SAM) templates make tying them together pretty …
Chose AWS Lambda
Microsoft's Azure functions and Lambda occupy the same functionality conceptually. Both offer serverless functions, and can perform similar operations. Azure functions are better suited for Azure based infrastructure and Lambda is better suited for an AWS based setup. Lambda …
Microsoft Azure
Chose Microsoft Azure
I liked AWS Lambda. It allows us to host MVC applications serverless, whereas Microsoft Azure functions has a slightly different programming model which prevents me from hosting MVC apps easily without code changes as an Azure Function.

As a result, we use both, but we …
Chose Microsoft Azure
I would say that Azure stacks up pretty good and sometimes better in comparison to what Google Cloud Platform has to offer. I don't like GCP for its absurd licensing fees and it's expensive for just Using EC2 Instances. However, DigitalOcean and AWS can offer far better …
Chose Microsoft Azure
Azure provides an environment that while at time is more pricey, the tight integration with our existing Microsoft-based infrastructure makes it difficult to beat.
Chose Microsoft Azure
Azure was less developed but with our relationship and familiarity with the tool, it beat out the competition. The service itself has some areas that need to be improved but the current features are very promising. Given another year or two, it'll be up there with AWS and other …
Chose Microsoft Azure
We have settled with Microsoft Azure considered its effective administration and the ability to data visualization and analysis, together with the top-notch security/stability.
Chose Microsoft Azure
A few years ago we were a fairly large AWS shop. At a specific point the decision was made to go to Azure and we have been very happy with the outcome. Azure works better, integrates better, has better support and is cheaper that What we had with AWS. Simply put Azure is the …
Chose Microsoft Azure
AWS is competitor and it's leading in cloud space with his wide sprawl of offerings and services. AWS is a ocean once you login you get everything on one console. AWS leads this space with all his offerings and capabilities. But Azure is not behind, it is competing and is …
Features
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)AWS LambdaMicrosoft Azure
Data Center Backup
Comparison of Data Center Backup features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
8.7
11 Ratings
1% above category average
AWS Lambda
-
Ratings
Microsoft Azure
-
Ratings
Universal recovery8.510 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Instant recovery8.210 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Recovery verification8.47 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Business application protection8.57 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Multiple backup destinations8.410 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Incremental backup identification9.14 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Backup to the cloud8.711 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Deduplication and file compression8.95 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Snapshots8.87 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Flexible deployment9.111 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Management dashboard7.810 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform support8.610 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Retention options9.37 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Encryption9.68 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Enterprise Backup
Comparison of Enterprise Backup features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
8.6
11 Ratings
2% above category average
AWS Lambda
-
Ratings
Microsoft Azure
-
Ratings
Continuous data protection9.410 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Replication8.610 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Operational reporting and analytics7.911 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Malware protection8.84 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Multi-location capabilities8.711 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Ransomware Recovery8.01 Ratings00 Ratings00 Ratings
Access Control and Security
Comparison of Access Control and Security features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
-
Ratings
AWS Lambda
8.8
7 Ratings
3% below category average
Microsoft Azure
-
Ratings
Multiple Access Permission Levels (Create, Read, Delete)00 Ratings8.67 Ratings00 Ratings
Single Sign-On (SSO)00 Ratings9.13 Ratings00 Ratings
Reporting & Analytics
Comparison of Reporting & Analytics features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
-
Ratings
AWS Lambda
5.0
6 Ratings
32% below category average
Microsoft Azure
-
Ratings
Dashboards00 Ratings5.56 Ratings00 Ratings
Standard reports00 Ratings5.15 Ratings00 Ratings
Custom reports00 Ratings4.45 Ratings00 Ratings
Function as a Service (FaaS)
Comparison of Function as a Service (FaaS) features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
-
Ratings
AWS Lambda
8.7
7 Ratings
0% above category average
Microsoft Azure
-
Ratings
Programming Language Diversity00 Ratings9.07 Ratings00 Ratings
Runtime API Authoring00 Ratings8.07 Ratings00 Ratings
Function/Database Integration00 Ratings8.97 Ratings00 Ratings
DevOps Stack Integration00 Ratings8.97 Ratings00 Ratings
Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS)
Comparison of Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
-
Ratings
AWS Lambda
-
Ratings
Microsoft Azure
8.5
27 Ratings
3% above category average
Service-level Agreement (SLA) uptime00 Ratings00 Ratings8.126 Ratings
Dynamic scaling00 Ratings00 Ratings8.725 Ratings
Elastic load balancing00 Ratings00 Ratings8.624 Ratings
Pre-configured templates00 Ratings00 Ratings8.225 Ratings
Monitoring tools00 Ratings00 Ratings8.326 Ratings
Pre-defined machine images00 Ratings00 Ratings8.424 Ratings
Operating system support00 Ratings00 Ratings9.026 Ratings
Security controls00 Ratings00 Ratings8.626 Ratings
Automation00 Ratings00 Ratings8.224 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)AWS LambdaMicrosoft Azure
Small Businesses
Cove Data Protection
Cove Data Protection
Score 9.2 out of 10
IBM Cloud Functions
IBM Cloud Functions
Score 6.8 out of 10
DigitalOcean Droplets
DigitalOcean Droplets
Score 9.4 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Druva Security Cloud
Druva Security Cloud
Score 9.4 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
SAP on IBM Cloud
SAP on IBM Cloud
Score 9.0 out of 10
Enterprises
Druva Security Cloud
Druva Security Cloud
Score 9.4 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.2 out of 10
SAP on IBM Cloud
SAP on IBM Cloud
Score 9.0 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)AWS LambdaMicrosoft Azure
Likelihood to Recommend
8.8
(77 ratings)
7.7
(52 ratings)
8.8
(96 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
10.0
(17 ratings)
Usability
8.5
(15 ratings)
8.3
(17 ratings)
8.3
(36 ratings)
Availability
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
6.8
(2 ratings)
Support Rating
9.8
(21 ratings)
8.7
(20 ratings)
9.0
(27 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(2 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)AWS LambdaMicrosoft Azure
Likelihood to Recommend
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
Amazon AWS
Lambda excels at event-driven, short-lived tasks, such as processing files or building simple APIs. However, it's less ideal for long-running, computationally intensive, or applications that rely on carrying the state between jobs. Cold starts and constant load can easily balloon the costs.
Read full review
Microsoft
Azure is particularly well suited for enterprise environments with existing Microsoft investments, those that require robust compliance features, and organizations that need hybrid cloud capabilities that bridge on-premises and cloud infrastructure. In my opinion, Azure is less appropriate for cost-sensitive startups or small businesses without dedicated cloud expertise and scenarios requiring edge computing use cases with limited connectivity. Azure offers comprehensive solutions for most business needs but can feel like there is a higher learning curve than other cloud-based providers, depending on the product and use case.
Read full review
Pros
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
Amazon AWS
  • No provisioning required - we don't have to pay anything upfront
  • Serverless deployment - it gets executed only when request comes and we pay only for the time the request is getting executed
  • Integrates well with AWS CloudWatch triggers so it is easy to setup scheduled tasks like cron jobs
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Microsoft Azure is highly scalable and flexible. You can quickly scale up or down additional resources and computing power.
  • You have no longer upfront investments for hardware. You only pay for the use of your computing power, storage space, or services.
  • The uptime that can be achieved and guaranteed is very important for our company. This includes the rapid maintenance for security updates that are mostly carried out by Microsoft.
  • The wide range of capabilities of services that are possible in Microsoft Azure. You can practically put or create anything in Microsoft Azure.
Read full review
Cons
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
Amazon AWS
  • Developing test cases for Lambda functions can be difficult. For functions that require some sort of input it can be tough to develop the proper payload and event for a test.
  • For the uninitiated, deploying functions with Infrastructure as Code tools can be a challenging undertaking.
  • Logging the output of a function feels disjointed from running the function in the console. A tighter integration with operational logging would be appreciated, perhaps being able to view function logs from the Lambda console instead of having to navigate over to CloudWatch.
  • Sometimes its difficult to determine the correct permissions needed for Lambda execution from other AWS services.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • The cost of resources is difficult to determine, technical documentation is frequently out of date, and documentation and mapping capabilities are lacking.
  • The documentation needs to be improved, and some advanced configuration options require research and experimentation.
  • Microsoft's licensing scheme is too complex for the average user, and Azure SQL syntax is too different from traditional SQL.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Amazon AWS
Due to princing, availability and scalability.
Read full review
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
Moving to Azure was and still is an organizational strategy and not simply changing vendors. Our product roadmap revolved around Azure as we are in the business of humanitarian relief and Azure and Microsoft play an important part in quickly and efficiently serving all of the world. Migration and investment in Azure should be considered as an overall strategy of an organization and communicated companywide.
Read full review
Usability
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
Amazon AWS
I give it a seven is usability because it's AWS. Their UI's are always clunkier than the competition and their documentation is rather cumbersome. There's SO MUCH to dig through and it's a gamble if you actually end up finding the corresponding info if it will actually help. Like I said before, going to google with a specific problem is likely a better route because AWS is quite ubiquitous and chances are you're not the first to encounter the problem. That being said, using SAM (Serverless application model) and it's SAM Local environment makes running local instances of your Lambdas in dev environments painless and quite fun. Using Nodejs + Lambda + SAM Local + VS Code debugger = AWESOME.
Read full review
Microsoft
As Microsoft Azure is [doing a] really good with PaaS. The need of a market is to have [a] combo of PaaS and IaaS. While AWS is making [an] exceptionally well blend of both of them, Azure needs to work more on DevOps and Automation stuff. Apart from that, I would recommend Azure as a great platform for cloud services as scale.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
It has proven to be unreliable in our production environment and services become unavailable without proper notification to system administrators
Read full review
Support Rating
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
Amazon AWS
Amazon consistently provides comprehensive and easy-to-parse documentation of all AWS features and services. Most development team members find what they need with a quick internet search of the AWS documentation available online. If you need advanced support, though, you might need to engage an AWS engineer, and that could be an unexpected (or unwelcome) expense.
Read full review
Microsoft
We were running Windows Server and Active Directory, so [Microsoft] Azure was a seamless transition. We ran into a few, if any support issues, however, the availability of Microsoft Azure's support team was more than willing and able to guide us through the process. They even proposed solutions to issues we had not even thought of!
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
Amazon AWS
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
As I have mentioned before the issue with my Oracle Mismatch Version issues that have put a delay on moving one of my platforms will justify my 7 rating.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
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
Amazon AWS
AWS Lambda is good for short running functions, and ideally in response to events within AWS. Google App Engine is a more robust environment which can have complex code running for long periods of time, and across more than one instance of hardware. Google App Engine allows for both front-end and back-end infrastructure, while AWS Lambda is only for small back-end functions
Read full review
Microsoft
As I continue to evaluate the "big three" cloud providers for our clients, I make the following distinctions, though this gap continues to close. AWS is more granular, and inherently powerful in the configuration options compared to [Microsoft] Azure. It is a "developer" platform for cloud. However, Azure PowerShell is helping close this gap. Google Cloud is the leading containerization platform, largely thanks to it building kubernetes from the ground up. Azure containerization is getting better at having the same storage/deployment options.
Read full review
Return on Investment
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
Amazon AWS
  • Positive - Only paying for when code is run, unlike virtual machines where you pay always regardless of processing power usage.
  • Positive - Scalability and accommodating larger amounts of demand is much cheaper. Instead of scaling up virtual machines and increasing the prices you pay for that, you are just increasing the number of times your lambda function is run.
  • Negative - Debugging/troubleshooting, and developing for lambda functions take a bit more time to get used to, and migrating code from virtual machines and normal processes to Lambda functions can take a bit of time.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • For about 2 years we didn't have to do anything with our production VMs, the system ran without a hitch, which meant our engineers could focus on features rather than infrastructure.
  • DNS management was very easy in Azure, which made it easy to upgrade our cluster with zero downtime.
  • Azure Web UI was easy to work with and navigate, which meant our senior engineers and DevOps team could work with Azure without formal training.
Read full review
ScreenShots