Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Amazon S3
Score 8.9 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 S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon S3
Free Trial
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup fee
Additional Details—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Considered Both Products
Amazon S3
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)
I think [Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)] is cheaper than Azure Blob Storage (at least at the time I selected it). It is a low maintenance product and it is more reliable.
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
S3 is still being used within our org but we have dialed it back heavily due to the inexpensive competing product CloudFlare offers. CloudFlare is basically free for the same functionality and the company has matured to the point where it is reliable and scalable, plus CDN …
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)
Amazon S3 is the business driving arrangement by Amazon Web Services. It has answers for all startup's and huge venture. The expense viability is one reason that I have chosen the Amazon S3 over other
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
We are an AWS shop, thus it is much easier to use with other AWS services. It may not always be the cheapest but once you are in AWS if you can decouple your apps and use this as one of your services it will certainly make developer's life easier and admin life easier.
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
S3 is the most mature simple storage service on the web. It has direct competitors from Google and Azure, as well as a bunch of other competitors that focus on different aspects. For example, Backblaze specializes on file backups, and while s3 can also be used for that, Backbla…
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
We had already decided to use Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) for other compute services, so it made sense to use Amazon for blob storage as well. By using the same cloud vendor, we can more easily integrate between AWS services like Cloudfront. Blob storage is essentially a …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Amazon S3 provides a variety of tools for uploading short and large objects to the cloud. AWS S3 is a key-value store, one of the major categories of NoSQL databases used for accumulating voluminous, mutating, unstructured, or semistructured data. S3 object retrieval is fast. …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
They're both great. I really don't know the differences, but both have the same basic set of features, in my opinion. But, S3 is widely know as a greater tool, safer, and much easier. Also, it's used by and compatible with a lot of applications around the world. That made us …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
The main differences are that S3 files can be accessed publicly without having an account on the service so it is suitable for website assets, but the other services have desktop hard drive syncing applications so they are more suitable for sharing files to other staff in the …
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)
AWS probably has the most difficult UI to learn but it's the far better service.
Google is probably second but it has storage limitations and there are some security concerns (still a good tool for collaboration)
The Microsoft products are the worst IMO. They're slow and have the …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Most of our customers are on AWS so it's easy for us to integrate it with AWS S3 and we could deliver our projects on or before the expected time.
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)
AWS S3 isn't really comparable to AWS EC2 since they are typically separate services that are to be used together and don't do the same things. They do work well together though.
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Since we use other AWS products, and since AWS and S3 are more familiar to developers, it is easier for us to stick with Amazon S3 over a similar solution like Google Cloud Storage.
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
S3 and EBS/EFS both host files, but they are very different. S3 is great for static files where EBS/EFS are more intended for files that are frequently modified. S3 is also much better for public files like images, videos, HTML/CSS files, and other web resources that are …
Chose Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Amazon S3 compared to all of these has the worst user interface. Drive and Dropbox as everyone knows is simpler and used for shared work files with a user-friendly interface. Google Cloud Storage and Amazon S3 are both in the same boat for large application files and great for …
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 …
Top Pros
Top Cons
Features
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Data Center Backup
Comparison of Data Center Backup features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
9.7
2 Ratings
13% above category average
Universal recovery9.52 Ratings
Instant recovery9.52 Ratings
Recovery verification10.01 Ratings
Multiple backup destinations10.01 Ratings
Backup to the cloud10.02 Ratings
Snapshots10.01 Ratings
Flexible deployment10.02 Ratings
Management dashboard7.52 Ratings
Platform support10.02 Ratings
Retention options10.01 Ratings
Encryption10.02 Ratings
Enterprise Backup
Comparison of Enterprise Backup features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
9.5
2 Ratings
16% above category average
Continuous data protection10.02 Ratings
Replication10.02 Ratings
Operational reporting and analytics8.02 Ratings
Multi-location capabilities10.02 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Small Businesses
Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage
Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage
Score 9.6 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Bacula Enterprise
Bacula Enterprise
Score 9.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Bacula Enterprise
Bacula Enterprise
Score 9.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Likelihood to Recommend
10.0
(68 ratings)
Usability
8.1
(10 ratings)
Support Rating
9.8
(21 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
ScreenShots