Azure Blob Storage vs. Google Cloud Storage vs. Red Hat Gluster Storage

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Azure Blob Storage
Score 8.9 out of 10
N/A
Microsoft's Blob Storage system on Azure is designed to make unstructured data available to customers anywhere through REST-based object storage.
$0.01
per GB/per month
Google Cloud Storage
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
Google Cloud Storage is unified object storage for developers and enterprises.N/A
Red Hat Gluster Storage
Score 6.0 out of 10
N/A
Red Hat Gluster Storage is a software-defined storage option; Red Hat acquired Gluster in 2011.N/A
Pricing
Azure Blob StorageGoogle Cloud StorageRed Hat Gluster Storage
Editions & Modules
Block Blobs
$0.0081
per GB/per month
Azure Data Lake Storage
$0.0081
per GB/per month
Files
$0.058
per GB/per month
Managed Discs
$1.54
per month
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure Blob StorageGoogle Cloud StorageRed Hat Gluster Storage
Free Trial
YesNoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure Blob StorageGoogle Cloud StorageRed Hat Gluster Storage
Considered Multiple Products
Azure Blob Storage
Chose Azure Blob Storage
Azure Premium Blob offers better latency than competitors. It works best with the Azure ecosystem, and competitors lack it. Azure Blob even stands out in storage durability, providing up to 16 nines. It can have various use cases that can suit all the organisation's needs. The …
Chose Azure Blob Storage
In our case, Blob storage was not the deciding factor in switching to the provider. It could have been a knockout criterion if Azure had no or an incompatible object storage (key attributes: reliable, cost-efficient, and reasonably fast), because Azure's internal alternatives …
Chose Azure Blob Storage
Blob storage lets us control the file source/hosting and retain everything within our Microsoft ecosystem. Blob is less feature-rich than some of the other products. Still, we consider it as a value-added product included within our environment, and alternative products are not …
Chose Azure Blob Storage
Azure Blob Storage was used only because we were already using it for other projects, and it has a good reputation for being a reliable cloud provider. It also has widespread regional availability and allows for data replication. It can also be easily accessed via the API or by …
Chose Azure Blob Storage
We didn't actually evaluate anything but Azure Blob Storage since it worked so well for backups and Audit logs and the price point was good enough for us.
Chose Azure Blob Storage
Azure Blob Storage is the best choice to store files when the app runs in Azure. It also has some advantages over S3, like Shared Access Signatures, that make it easy to control access to files directly via a URL. Azure Blob Storage is very fast and we have not had any major …
Chose Azure Blob Storage
S3 seemed to be just as functional as blob storage in our analysis. The only real difference is we already were on the Microsoft platform with 365, and it was an easy system to continue to learn. That was the only real deciding factor between the two that made any difference …
Chose Azure Blob Storage
Ease of use and availability to actual usage makes it my first choice. I feel like IBM Cloud is where azure was 5 years ago in terms of implementation and ease of use. AWS has some great functionality but it almost feels like you need to learn how to work under the hood of a …
Chose Azure Blob Storage
Azure Blob is the only major cloud object storage platform that we use today.
Google Cloud Storage
Chose Google Cloud Storage
We chose Google Cloud Storage for its superior integration with BigQuery and AI/ML tools. Unlike AWS S3’s complex tiering or Azure’s offline archive, Google Cloud Storage offers millisecond access even for archival classes. This simplified our architecture while providing the …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage feels much more intuitive to use versus Amazon S3. I really prefer Google's Node SDK and web interface, and find Google Cloud Platform's access/identity management much more straightforward.
Chose Google Cloud Storage
This software is perfect for the organization where a huge amount of data are generated. The software has the perfect features by which the organization can store their information safely. The software has the features where one can share cloud with colleagues for project …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Google had the easiest and most secure file sharing abilities, and was a more trusted name for our clients to be assured that their files would remain private.
Chose Google Cloud Storage
We have used Amazon S3 for similar needs, or for solutions that don't support Google Cloud Storage. For us, Google Cloud Storage works much better since it's integrated into Google Cloud Platform. Since we use Google Cloud Platform, Google Cloud Storage is part of our cloud …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
The two services are very comparable, but we have many different services that all run on the Google Cloud Platform and therefore Google Cloud Storage made more sense as our storage solution rather than looking to an outside service like S3. Either one of these options would …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage has been experiencing less technical issues and is more straight forward to use, for our technical team, it saves training time by having a straight forward help and FAQ section. We needed very little training, as opposed to previously used other tools …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud offers Google Cloud Storage, while AWS offers Amazon Simple Storage Services. In Google Cloud services, data transmission is a fully encrypted format on the other hand, in AWS, data transmission is in the general format. Google Cloud volume size is 1 GB to 64 TB …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
The big difference against other competitors that offer a Cloud storage solution, is the fact that Google Cloud Storage and other Google Cloud Platform products are billed in the local currency. This fact saves a lot of money because in some countries we have to pay for …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Aside from Google Cloud Storage, we've used AWS S3 and have found the two comparable. In fact, GCS is one of a large number of object storage systems that are compatible with S3 (including DigitalOcean Spaces, IBM Cloud Storage, and Azure Blog Storage). When it comes to these …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage effectively outweighs Google Drive's limited capabilities. This software, being a paid version, allows for much room for extra storage space, faster loading times from my experience, and easy sharing features. Compared to Google Drive, Google Cloud Storage …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
I chose Google Cloud Storage due to its implementation with Google Firestore. Both worked off each other and made our connection with Google Firestore a lot simpler.
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage is the only right option for media and document files. Unless you need to work with structured information where Cloud SQL or Datastore may be better options, storing files in Cloud Storage is easy and right to the point. Also, prices are worth considering …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage compares very similar to Dropbox. The difference of using Googe Cloud Storage is that it is part of a big bundle of products that you are probably already using. If you are a big Google user then it would make sense to get Google Cloud Storage. This way you …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage is the only one I have tried. But when researching we looked at Google Cloud, as well as Microsoft and Amazon. Google was more expensive, but seemed to be more of what we were looking for. Again, not really my department.
Chose Google Cloud Storage
One drive only offers you 5GB free space when google gives you 15 GB. and google cloud as better performance. even with real-time sync.
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Google Cloud Storage is really a different application. It does not have the data parsing capabilities and it is simply a cold storage option in our use case. This means it is less flexible and has limited uses, but the uses it does have it, performs very well. There is a very …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Guru and Google Cloud Storage are different in many ways. They are by no means the same product, but our team has begun to move away from Google for our documentation of processes. Guru has a superior system for organizing documents and articles.
Chose Google Cloud Storage
I have used Microsoft One Drive, Dropbox, Box, Amazon Cloud Drive, and Google Cloud Storage. All of this cloud storage software do pretty much does the same thing, but the difference for me is in ease of use— for me the easiest to use is Google Drive. I will say this, I use …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
Easier to set up and has a natural interface that is well known to users so it is easy for them to assimilate. Google Cloud Storage is faster than any other option we tried and works perfectly with our Chromebooks. From an ROI perspective, it is the best option for a medium …
Chose Google Cloud Storage
We tend to only select Google Cloud Storage when we're using other Google products as it makes integration easier -- but we tend not to choose it for situations where we can use a competing offering from Azure or AWS. We tend to implement the most Azure and AWS by far, and …
Red Hat Gluster Storage
Chose Red Hat Gluster Storage
Gluster is a lot lower cost than the storage industry leaders. However, NetApp and Dell/EMC's product documentation is (IMHO) more mature and hardened against usage in operational scenarios and environments. Using Gluster avoids "vendor lock-in" from the perspective on now …
Best Alternatives
Azure Blob StorageGoogle Cloud StorageRed Hat Gluster Storage
Small Businesses
Amazon S3 Glacier
Amazon S3 Glacier
Score 9.0 out of 10
Amazon S3 Glacier
Amazon S3 Glacier
Score 9.0 out of 10
StarWind Virtual SAN
StarWind Virtual SAN
Score 9.8 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Everpure FlashBlade
Everpure FlashBlade
Score 9.9 out of 10
Azure Blob Storage
Azure Blob Storage
Score 8.9 out of 10
StarWind Virtual SAN
StarWind Virtual SAN
Score 9.8 out of 10
Enterprises
Everpure FlashBlade
Everpure FlashBlade
Score 9.9 out of 10
Azure Blob Storage
Azure Blob Storage
Score 8.9 out of 10
IBM Storage Scale
IBM Storage Scale
Score 9.8 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Azure Blob StorageGoogle Cloud StorageRed Hat Gluster Storage
Likelihood to Recommend
9.1
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.9
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
-
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.0
(0 ratings)
7.8
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
8.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Azure Blob StorageGoogle Cloud StorageRed Hat Gluster Storage
Likelihood to Recommend
Blob storage is well suited to hosting/sharing zipped files rather than several smaller files, as folder enumeration/listing is not supported. Files uploaded are case-sensitive, so users need to be educated on the correct naming convention format if they are delegating the file-sharing process outside of IT.
Read full review
[Google Cloud Storage is] great for storing and playing large video files, and even sharing them securely with others, whether or not they are part of your organization. No need to download video files before watching, and can also be used to store any other kinds of files.
Read full review
GFS is well suited for DEVOPS type environments where organizations prefer to invest in servers and DAS (direct attached storage) versus purchasing storage solutions/appliances. GFS allows organizations to scale their storage capacity at a fraction of the price using DAS HDDs versus committing to purchase licenses and hardware from a dedicated storage manufacturer (e.g. NetApp, Dell/EMC, HP, etc.).
Read full review
Pros
  • Ease of use both through Azure Portal as well as API.
  • Cost-effective solution for storing a large amount of data compared to other storage solutions.
  • Scalability, Security, and Performance are the other key aspects of Azure Blob Storage that are easily manageable through Admin Console.
Read full review
  • Really great, easy to use interface helps us manage files easily. Storage is fast and inexpensive, so we don't have to spin up storage instances locally
  • Great set of command-line tools to manage data and storage options via scripts and apps, as well as an SDK means we can build GCS into our orchestration and operations tools
  • Robust integration with other Google cloud tools means that we don't have to think too hard about using GCS for a variety of storage tasks as we interact with other Google services.
Read full review
  • Scales; bricks can be easily added to increase storage capacity
  • Performs; I/O is spread across multiple spindles (HDDs), thereby increasing read and write performance
  • Integrates well with RHEL/CentOS 7; if your organization is using RHEL 7, Gluster (GFS) integrates extremely well with that baseline, especially since it's come under the Red Hat portfolio of tools.
Read full review
Cons
  • Sometimes the behavior is nondeterministic (e.g. compare config via UI vs. terraform).
  • While it does some things better than S3, the interoperability in a migration scenario seems cumbersome.
  • The number of features/config options is overwhelming; we found the docs, etc., a bit hard to read.
Read full review
  • Sometimes we would find advice for how to do something that wasn't documented in the API, although this was very early on.
  • When we first started using it, Google Cloud Storage was changing a lot, and some of these changes required us to adapt our code to fit them.
Read full review
  • Documentation; using readthedocs demonstrates that the Gluster project isn't always kept up-to-date as far as documentation is concerned. Many of the guides are for previous versions of the product and can be cumbersome to follow at times.
  • Self-healing; our use of GFS required the administrator to trigger an auto-heal operation manually whenever bricks were added/removed from the pool. This would be a great feature to incorporate using autonomous self-healing whenever a brick is added/removed from the pool.
  • Performance metrics are scarce; our team received feedback that online RDBMS transactions did not perform well on distributed file systems (such as GFS), however this could not be substantiated via any online research or white papers.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
No answers on this topic
after all of the investment made in the tool and considering how many teams use it I think we would not be likely to move away from this tool. A lot of our information including historical is already here and we are happy with the capabilities of the tool currently
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
Blob storage is fairly simple, with several different options/settings that can be configured. The file explorer has enhanced its usability. Some areas could be improved, such as providing more details or stats on how many times a file has been accessed. It is an obvious choice if you're already using Azure/Entra.
Read full review
I would rate Google Cloud Storage’s usability as excellent, particularly for developers. The web console is clean and intuitive for basic tasks, while the CLI tools offer powerful automation. Although navigating IAM permissions has a slight learning curve, the comprehensive documentation and seamless integration with other Google services make it highly efficient.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Performance
No answers on this topic
For performance i give Google Cloud Storage 10 of 10 on performance because even though there are other softwares that do exactly the same thing as Google Drive, it still works exceptionally well. It is very fast, and and far as integration, the only software I have used with it that integrated was Google Docs, and of course it integrates perfectly.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
Microsoft has improved its customer service standpoint over the years. The ability to chat with an issue, get a callback, schedule a call or work with an architecture team(for free) is a huge plus. I can get mentorship and guidance on where to go with my environment without pushy sales tactics. This is very refreshing. Typically support can get me to where I need to be on the first contact, which is also nice.
Read full review
We have never used official support from Google for our Google Cloud Storage, but there is plenty of documentation in place already. With a small amount of work, anybody should be able to get started. Once needs get more complicated, there is still documentation from Google, but also plenty of community support for common use cases around the internet.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
overall I was not directly involved but hears the teams were satisfied with the implementation. the teams that used the tool did not encounter major issues, it was as expected with minor issues and bugs that were resolved later. The more significant learning curve was actually starting to use the tool
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
In our case, Blob storage was not the deciding factor in switching to the provider. It could have been a knockout criterion if Azure had no or an incompatible object storage (key attributes: reliable, cost-efficient, and reasonably fast), because Azure's internal alternatives do not work. As these were fulfilled or even overfulfilled (configuration options), the effort required to migrate was well justified, given the S3-based object storage.
Read full review
Google Cloud Storage compares very similar to Dropbox. The difference of using Googe Cloud Storage is that it is part of a big bundle of products that you are probably already using. If you are a big Google user then it would make sense to get Google Cloud Storage. This way you can have all of the tools you need under one roof. I selected Google Cloud Storage because I was already using Google's other products and I was very impressed by those products so it was an easy sale.
Read full review
Gluster is a lot lower cost than the storage industry leaders. However, NetApp and Dell/EMC's product documentation is (IMHO) more mature and hardened against usage in operational scenarios and environments. Using Gluster avoids "vendor lock-in" from the perspective on now having to purchase dedicated hardware and licenses to run it. Albeit, should an organization choose to pay for support for Gluster, they would be paying licensing costs to Red Hat instead of NetApp, Dell, EMC, HP, or VMware. It could be assumed, however, that if an organization wanted to use Gluster, that they were already a Linux shop and potentially already paying Red Hat or Canonical (Debian) for product support, thereby the use of GFS would be a nominal cost adder from a maintenance/training perspective.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Azure Blob has reduced our overall infrastructure cost.
  • With Azure Blob Storage, we don't need dedicated personnel to maintain storage and its related infrastructure.
  • Azure Blob Storage provides a one-stop storage solution for most of our business needs, allowing us to focus solely on the business.
Read full review
  • It allows the use of large Big Query data sets, this enables better data analysis.
  • It helps the business maintain a central storage solution for data.
  • Secure and easy to learn and use, it allows for fast adoption which improves productivity.
  • It does not enable collaboration and has limits on flexibility.
Read full review
  • Positive - Alignment with the open source community and being able to stay abreast of the latest trending products available.
  • Positive - Reduced procurement and maintenance costs.
  • Negative - Impacts user/system maintainer training in order to teach them how to utilize and troubleshoot the product.
Read full review
ScreenShots