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
Google Compute Engine
Score 8.8 out of 10
N/A
Google Compute Engine is an infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) product from Google Cloud. It provides virtual machines with carbon-neutral infrastructure which run on the same data centers that Google itself uses.
$0.01
Hour
Pricing
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Google Compute Engine
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Preemptible Price - Predefined Memory
0.000892 / GB
Hour
Three-year commitment price - Predefined Memory
$0.001907 / GB
Hour
One-year commitment price - Predefined Memory
$0.002669 / GB
Hour
On-demand price - Predefined Memory
$0.004237 / GB
Hour
Preemptible Price - Predefined vCPUs
0.006655 / vCPU
Hour
Three-year commitment price - Predefined vCPUS
$0.014225 / CPU
Hour
One-year commitment price - Predefined vCPUS
$0.019915 / vCPU
Hour
On-demand price - Predefined vCPUS
$0.031611 / vCPU
Hour
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon S3
Google Compute Engine
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Prices vary according to region (i.e US central, east, & west time zones). Google Compute Engine also offers a discounted rate for a 1 & 3 year commitment.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Google Compute Engine
Considered Both Products
Amazon S3
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Amazon S3
S3 is excellent but has a different use case than ebs. As ebs can be used as a filesystem, s3 bucket stores objects
We opted for Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) solution as most of our workloads run on AWS and this saves as bandwidth costs. Otherwise the solutions are similar in capabilities for our needs.
Amazon S3 integrates way better with other AWS services and tools, making it the quick choice for your AWS based application. Furthermore, the pricing for Amazon S3 is very competitive and it has all the security and access capabilities to enable your application. Google …
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 …
Amazon S3 has so much other functionality than it's competitors with so many more use cases. We use One Drive, Drop Box, Teams, Google Drive and other products for basic file sharing while working with partners and clients but that's kind of the extent of those products. S3 …
More robust and feature rich. Also more cost effective. However, the other options do lend themselves to be better at user friendliness. But if your technological and willing to look up help in the support knowledgebase you will do just fine and get a better product at …
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 …
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 …
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 …
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
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.
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, …
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 …
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. …
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 …
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.
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 …
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 …
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 …
Rather than saying GCE is better. I would say that depends on the business and technical requirements it might fit better than others. There is no silver bullet.
I actually prefer Azure's UI over Google Compute Engine's , but Google Compute Engine's pricings are way more competitive, which makes it the go-to choice for infrastracture low budget companies such as ours, since our core business is not IT or software development related
Cloud providers offering virtual machines are quite common. I think, Google, however, is arguably one of the top players in the market, with some of the largest (if not the largest) and most advanced server farms in the world. If you're looking for reliability and cost …
The perfect blend of setup flexibility, costing and trust of Google could be my answer to the comparison. This being a server backed service so, ruling out the functions. The Setup flexibility and speed set the GCE apart from Kubernetes. Compliance, regulation and the security …
We have tried using DigitalOcean droplets for some of our minor and non critical VMs. In our experience, Google Compute Engine fares well in comparison the DigitalOcean droplets as they provide better availability, better support and in general, a better experience.
As far as user-friendliness is concerned, I personally rank Google Cloud above both AWS and Azure. Their user interface makes it easy to manage, which is important.
I find Google Compute Engine to be much easier to use than Amazon's EC2 service. The console makes much more sense, permission management is much cleaner, and I'd say the other categories feel on par with EC2: performance, how fine-grained the settings are, connecting to …
The obvious and natural alternatives to GCE are AWS EC2 and Azure VMs. I would say all three are more similar than not. Picking one will most likely depend on what platform you're on already, where your running services are, and which one is more familiar to your team.
When configuring Amazon ECS, it is a bit confusing as you are not able to find the actual issue. You need to enable Additional AppInsights to get detailed level info, which is not a concern when configuring on the Instance Level. Moreover, Azure VM does not provide an …
The Google Cloud computing engine is fair at the top because it bills customers, automatic discounting for extended use, and how fast it can be turned on. We enjoy things around setting it up very easily via APIs and CLI commands, and with the always-on recommendations from …
I have utilised Google Compute Engine in addition to Amazon EC2. Both exhibit excellent performance in terms of consumption, speed, and efficiency.My decision to adopt Google Compute Engine was solely based on how user-friendly it is. more basic UI/UX than EC2.Google's customer …
Google Compute Engine provides on-demand computing resources that are easy to scale up or down according to my organization needs. This allows our business to quickly adapt to changes in demand without having to invest in additional hardware. It also offers a very competitive …
While Amazon EC2 is the best tool for developers to build an app and make it live, It has some downsides too. EC2 requires so much development while Google Compute Engine makes it easy to build an app within a days. EC2 pricing also relatively high compare to Google Compute …
GCE is available in 3 different regions whereas Ec2 is available in 11 different regions. The compute resources offered by the GCE has lower maximum capacity compared to AWS Ec2. The pricing model of GCE offers first 10 mins free and then charging in increments of 10 mins. Both …
I prefer the Compute Engine Over these as it provides us with Better Scalability, Performance, and Reliability Security-related Issues don't arise with the Compute Engine, but yes, in terms of accessing or running, it can be improved a bit as compared to EC2 offered by AWS.
the main reason of choosing GCE is availability and user friendly UI with a very good documentation and API explanations. Great visibility over the infra and security.
The features specific to Google Compute Engine vs Amazon EC2 along with cost and availability are comparable, there may be other services within the vendor which may mean that one is more suitable for specific applications than the other one. We have used both for different …
For archiving old data that is infrequently accessed it is perfect. You can choose to let it go into cold/glacier storage which saves even further costs but at the expense of accessibility. I like that you can set access rules to automatically move it to the next storage tier after a certain amount of time that it has not been accessed. I also use it a lot with PHP via the API. We have some custom in-house applications that have a fair amount of data uploaded into them. S3 has been a perfect solution to store these files, taking the load off web servers and never having issues with running out of storage.
It is excellent if you have any workloads that need raw computing or plan to have any state-full services running in your environment like DBs (for which you don't want to use Managed services), cache, etc. It also gives you complete control over which versions of software, OS, etc., you need, and thus, you can build anything and deploy it on GCE.
Reliable and secure way to store objects in cloud: Storing any type of file(text, pdf, doc, csv, etc) is very easy with S3. Fetching this stored content as and when you require is also pretty easy and can be done using both the console and AWS CLI. Appropriate permissions can be set up for buckets using IAM roles/policies.
Versioning in buckets: S3 gives you a very handy feature to store multiple versions of objects stored in a bucket.
Lifecycle policies: You can set up lifecycle policies in S3 that can move your older objects to IA or Glacier. This setup is very easy and can be done within minutes for a bucket.
Replication: The cross-region replication that S3 provides is wonderful. Beware of the inter-regional data transfer costs though.
A simple web-based interface that is a breeze to train new engineers to use. Our experienced engineers never have trouble finding or doing anything on GCE.
Sustained use and Committed use discounts mean we get top-tier VMs for an incredibly competitive price.
Wonderful identity and access management that gives us peace-of-mind when granting access to machines to contractors and other 3rd parties.
Fast VMs, lastest in hardware, and enough RAM to power even the hungriest of our services.
The biggest problem is to rename the bucket. There is no direct way to do it. One need to copy entire content to the different bucket with intended bucket name and then remove the old bucket. Sometimes it creates issues.
There is no direct way to upload .zip file and extract it to inside the bucket.
While uploading large files, sometimes you will find a drop of upload speed. I observe it so many times and while checking my internet speed, I find it absolutely perfect. So there must have something wrong on the AWS side.
The L7 load balancer can be difficult to get set up. It's limited in its functionality, especially with the container engine.
It's hard to find certain objects on the web console. Often times the things I need to get to are buried in advanced menus.
Google's decision to only support MySQL on their relational DB service means that I have to manage Postgres instances in Compute on my own, managing everything from storage to backups.
Its pretty good, easy and good performance. Also, interface is very good for starters compared to competitors. Infra as Code (IaC) using Terraform even added easiness for creation, management and deletion of compute Virtual Machines (VM). Overall, very good and very easy cloud based compute platform which simplified infrastructure, very much recommend.
The UI could have some improvements (better filters) and there is a lack of some useful functionality, such as renaming an existing bucket: the latter is much needed in the context of rapidly evolving companies. Overall though, Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is easy to use and to onboard people and tools to, thanks to its various APIs and flexibility.
Having interacted with several cloud services, GCE stands out to me as more usable than most. The naming and locating of features is a little more intuitive than most I've interacted with, and hinting is also quite helpful. Getting staff up to speed has proven to be overall less painful than others.
Google Compute Engine works well for cloud project with lesser geographical audience. It sometimes gives error while everything is set up perfectly. We also keep on check any updates available because that's one reason of site getting down. Google Compute Engine is ultimately a top solution to build an app and publish it online within a few minutes
Google Compute Engine usually delivers good and predictable performance for our self-hosted stack of applications. However, when running n8n heavy workflows, even with a tunned instance configuration in docker, performance usually peaks usually due to memory usage. We often need to upgrade memory when we have heavier data processing and workflows. Other than that, in a normal usage, we don't really have any problems
It depends on your tier within Amazon on how great of support you get. For us we have a dedicated Point of Contact that is great in taking in what we need and discussing it with the S3 team. The best thing is features we need or suggest have a good chance of landing on their roadmap.
The documentation needs to be better for intermediate users - There are first steps that one can easily follow, but after that, the documentation is often spotty or not in a form where one can follow the steps and accomplish the task. Also, the documentation and the product often go out of sync, where the commands from the documentation do not work with the current version of the product.
Google support was great and their presence on site was very helpful in dealing with various issues.
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, Backblaze provides a better price point in exchange for more focused functionality. S3 really shines in that it performs simple things astonishingly well, while also being flexible enough to stretch itself to other situations (data lakes, file mounts, backup/restores systems, web hosting, etc.).
When configuring Amazon ECS, it is a bit confusing as you are not able to find the actual issue. You need to enable Additional AppInsights to get detailed level info, which is not a concern when configuring on the Instance Level. Moreover, Azure VM does not provide an in-browser option; instead, it is Azure Bastion, but for that, you have to enable a dedicated subnet, which is a bit unnecessary.
Allows us to store large amounts of raw traffic from data providers to allow us to view data our systems received at particular times, in order to reconstruct inputs in case of errors
Is capable of storing very large amounts of data cheaply without material impact to our business
Scalability means flexibility and less upfront costs
Can become expensive when hard set compute requirements are clear, but things like Spot VMs can help here too, or just having your own infrastructure and scaling up with Google. This is for more advanced cases though
Ramp up time is long, but after that it is quick to do many things and ROI is awesome