Amazon S3 Reviews

236 Ratings
<a href='' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 9.1 out of 100

Do you work for this company? Learn how we help vendors

TrustRadius Top Rated for 2020

Overall Rating

Reviewer's Company Size

Last Updated

By Topic




Job Type


Reviews (1-25 of 49)

Companies can't remove reviews or game the system. Here's why.
September 06, 2019
Apurv Doshi | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We mostly use S3 for storage of compliance documents, cloud formation scripts, heavy media files and other materials which need to preserve but used infrequently. We also host some of the static webpages which are just a navigator to the documents.
One of the other most prominent use which we do with S3 is to transfer large files. With strict IMA policies, we can make sure of proper access to these files. While we use other AWS services like EC2 to host machine for any computation purpose, we need to store interim results and final results. We store these results to S3 and kill the EC2 instance.
Also, we have scripts written for transferring S3 objects (not used for more than 2 years) to Glacier to minimize cost factor.
  • Excellent support of Identity and access management makes sure that your objects are used by the intended audience only.
  • Entire service is accessible through commands and API. It makes integration and orchestration of S3 services really easy and automated.
  • S3 has quite good reliability and durability to make sure all requests are successfully fulfilled and your objects are always safe.
  • This service and UI interface is easy to understand. It takes almost no learning curve to consume this service.
  • The amount of flexibility it provides, I find it really cost-effective.
  • 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.
When any organization wants to take advantage of the AWS ecosystem, S3 is the most basic service. As a standalone service, one can use it just for storage. However, with the orchestration of other AWS services, it makes true value.
If a product needs to support a geographically well-distributed client, S3 edge locations and regions help extremely well. User need not worry about content sync up or replication at all. This makes S3 extremely useful for static content storage.
If the infrastructure need is really small and usage is limited, this service is not for you.
We have received excellent support from the AWS team whenever we need the same.
Read Apurv Doshi's full review
October 17, 2019
Frank Troglauer | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use Amazon S3 to store files, long term, and short term, from our servers and to share files for various purposes: sending to clients, serving files over the internet on our sites, etc. It acts as our central location for files we serve over the internet.
  • Ability to have files switched over to long term storage after inactivity.
  • Backups of files available if a loss occurs.
  • Access to files as needed from multiple points and availability.
  • Region availability all over the globe.
  • Easier API integration and better documentation.
It is well suited to storing files from, or for, servers and internet access.
The support team is knowledgeable but takes some time to respond unless you're paying for priority support.
Read Frank Troglauer's full review
September 12, 2019
Bryan McAnulty | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We are a digital product design and development company. When we build a new web or mobile app, the service we choose to use for application and database hosting may vary, but for serving static assets like images and other file downloads, we are always using Amazon S3. S3 combined with Amazon Cloudfront lets us serve static assets to our users and customers without having to worry about performance.
  • Ensures web and application servers don't get bogged down from serving static assets.
  • Works with popular frameworks for easy integration in applications to allow user uploading of additional assets.
  • Integrates easily with Amazon Cloudfront as a CDN.
  • Very little configuration needed to get started.
  • The website UI, while easy to use by even less technical staff, but certain options such as allowing public read for new uploads by default instead of manual selection, requires a bit more technical knowledge. (That said there is generally a custom UI built for users to upload files anyway so in our situation this isn't important).
Amazon S3 is a great choice to store frequently accessed image and media assets that might be needed as part of your website, web app or mobile application. There is also Amazon's "Glacier" storage option which is a storage class that is meant for data that isn't frequently accessed, and which can be stored at a significantly lower cost.

At the moment there is really no reason for us to choose a different service for this use case. The popularity of S3 means that any new developers working with us are already familiar with how to work with it.
From my limited need to have to interact with S3 support, my experience has been good. It is extremely rare for the service to experience outages or causes issues for our team. Further, many other services we use also integrate with S3 and we haven't had issues with S3 there either.
Read Bryan McAnulty's full review
September 09, 2019
Evan Laird | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
Amazon S3 is used in our mobile applications inorder to have users upload images to the cloud and bring them back to their device. So when users upload an image, it gets sent to Amazon S3 and when an image is shown on the screen we are also pulling it from the same place lowering the load on our apps. It's used as storage for images only.
  • Easy to upload and download
  • Simple to pull into applications
  • Fast load times for images and files
  • Better user interface and user experience
Amazon S3 is a perfect storage place for files and images for applications. Generally if you are less tech savy and just looking for simple cloud storage that doesn't need any automation or programming to send files to the cloud, it's best to go with a standard Dropbox or Google Drive. Also if your apps run off of Amazon Cloud or other services, it's nice to all have in one place.
I never had to use the customer support for Amazon S3 so this question is impossible to answer. From what I know from working with Amazon and AWS customer service in other areas is that they are knowledgable, fast, and follow up with everything in writing to ensure the problem is solved.
Read Evan Laird's full review
September 05, 2019
Jonathan Kempf, UXC | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use S3 as our primary storage solution. It is also being used as an intermediary between levels of micro-services. The primary storage in S3 is for heavy access, but we also put a CDN in front of it.
  • Cold Storage
  • Basic Storage
  • Integration into AWS
  • Usage as an NFS
  • Speed
  • Updated API
If you are planning on using S3 as a basic storage solution, I would recommend it. It compares well both on price and feature set to other comparable static file stores such as Google Drive and Backblaze B2. However, with S3, you get the benefit of being integrated into the AWS ecosystem. You can set up fairly complex data layers and services with ease by having your data in S3, as compared to other services.

However, if you are thinking of using S3 as a kind of NFS replacement, I wouldn't recommend it. There is no idea of object pointers in S3, so folders don't exist. Therefore, complex "nested" file organizations are really just a series of strings prefixed to the actual file. This results in slow speeds unless you setup filename hashing.
The first level support generally doesn't know anything. I only was able to learn a lot about S3 by talking to an actual Amazon Engineer.
Read Jonathan Kempf, UXC's full review
September 04, 2019
Willian Molinari | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
Amazon S3 is used to store all assets from our users. We store profile pictures, message attachments, and other user-related assets. We currently use Heroku to serve the application and it requires an external storage for these kinds of assets. We chose Amazon S3 because it's the most well known and trusted service for this.
  • A lot of libraries to make it easy to use it
  • A good price for the service
  • Fine grained permissions
  • Hard to use UI. Amazon likes to make things complicated in the UI
  • Vendor lock-in. When you start using products by Amazon, you usually get a vendor lock-in, as everything is there. It's not bad per se, but it's important to think about it
I like the service in general. It was simple to integrate to our application since it's very common for developers to use it and there are many libraries to help with that. The service works well as expected.
Never used the support directly, but in terms of information available, it is good enough for everything I needed.
Read Willian Molinari's full review
February 14, 2020
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
  • Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is used by the department of engineering to host several static websites. The apps are written mainly in Angular and Jekyll.
  • We host the websites in S3 buckets, distribute them through Cloudfront which provide a CDN and an SSL connection, and then set up the domain that will be used through DNS configuration at Cloudflare.
  • Outstanding UI/UX (drag & drop features help a lot)
  • Per-file permission system (make a file public or not)
  • Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) does not provide SSL. Right now, you always need to use Cloudfront if you want to have SSL.
  • Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is what you are looking for if you require to host static files. That includes serverless websites, images, videos, etc.
  • Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is not suited for web sites that run on a backend (Django, ASP.NET web forms, etc.) because it does not run any server for them to execute.
It does its work. I have no complaints.
Read this authenticated review
September 27, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use S3 for reliably and securely storing audios, medical transcriptions, application logs and pretty much everything else. S3 is our go-to cloud storage service as we are already invested in many other core AWS services like EC2, RDS and CloudWatch. We have been using S3 for around 10 years now, and so far, we have never had an issue with it.
  • 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.
  • No support for object versions retention: There can be a retention policy(days or number) for object versions that are stored in S3 so that we don't have to worry about paying extra for all the old versions of an object in the bucket.
  • No feature for replication within a region: Currently AWS does not support replication within a region. Also, having to enable versioning for buckets in which you need replication makes it even more costly.
  • Confusing pricing: The pricing model of S3 can be a little confusing for a new customer with questions regarding data transfer from other AWS services, between buckets or data transfer to the outside world.
S3 can be used to store your application logs or objects that need to be frequently accessed. It can also be used in conjunction with AWS Glue for data transformation tasks or to host a static website. The entire Simple Monthly Calculator service of AWS is hosted on S3. S3 would not be recommended for use as a database service or where the change needs to be reflected instantly. Since S3 provides eventual consistency, there is no guarantee that an update made by someone will actually be seen by someone accessing the same object just after. This is in contrast to a database wherein if a change is committed, it will start showing instantly to everyone else.
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 this authenticated review
December 06, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use Amazon S3 storage to archive and store all of our data. S3 is being utilized by our entire organization and enables all of our satellite offices and remote users to access company data from a centralized geo-redundant location without the added cost of building out of our infrastructure.
  • Centralized location for all your organizations data.
  • Great 3rd party API and integration.
  • Cost effective if properly monitored and maintained.
  • Ease to use and set-up.
  • Permissions can become complex.
  • UI needs to be updated and looks dated.
  • Tech support should be improved.
I would highly recommend S3 if you can dedicate IT staff to properly manage and monitor S3. For a small organization that is not able to dedicate the staff that is required, S3 could become expensive.
Overall, Amazon S3 has worked out great for our organization. It has enabled us to build out a centralized storage solutions for fraction of the cost that a on-prem solution would have required. If properly managed S3 is a great asset to any organization. There a few small things that need improvement like the UI and storage monitoring but over it's been great.
Read this authenticated review
December 03, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use Amazon S3 as our off-site remote backup storage solutions for our entire storage IT infrastructure. We have our on-prem storage infrastructure being backed up hourly, weekly and monthly to S3. Amazon S3 has enabled our organization to have a disaster recovery plan at a cost-effective price without the need of maintaining an offsite storage infrastructure.
  • Very simple to setup and administer.
  • Can grow with your storage needs.
  • Cost effective.
  • Geo redundant.
  • Fault tolerant and reliable.
  • If not managed correct it could get expensive.
  • Searching needs to be improved and is not effective.
  • Better reporting would be great.
Amazon S3 is great for any organization that has a dedicated IT or IT Department. You can build out a fully redundant and can scale as your remote backup needs grow. But if not correctly monitored, the storage usage of S3 could become extremely expensive.
Amazon S3 provides great value and scale with your exact needs. I would give S3 a 10 if it provided better reporting and was a little less expensive.
Read this authenticated review
February 25, 2020
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We used S3 for storing data on the cloud so that the data is available for our customers constantly without any dependency. We also use S3 to host static websites. S3 has different classes for storage so data can be stored according to customers' needs and charges and are levied accordingly.
  • Host static websites.
  • Store data as object and key.
  • Needs to integrate with multiple ecosystems.
  • Integration with Route 53 is difficult for hosting.
Amazon S3 is well suited for hosting a static website in a very short time and also for storing a huge chunk of data while using AWS services. It was difficult for us to integrate it with Azure cloud services as S3 has tight AWS integration.
Support is always available and they never waste your time.
Read this authenticated review
September 23, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 6 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use S3 to host customer-facing static content. It's a reliable, inexpensive and API-controllable way to do this, which has allowed us to build up in-house publishing workflows that push content to S3 on-demand as it's created. We initially considered using this in tandem with Cloud Front for global edge caching, but have since decided that S3 alone is sufficient for our needs.
  • Fast: S3 is quite fast, even when compared to other similar hosting and storage setups that aim to compete with S3.
  • Reliable: AWS, in general, has great uptime and reliability.
  • Powerful: S3's APIs are quite powerful and fairly flexible, meaning that with sufficient engineering investment you can do a whole lot with S3.
  • Expensive: S3 isn't cheap; when the speed and capacity is overkill, we've ended up looking elsewhere for hosting and storage.
  • Complexity: S3 is (like the rest of AWS) a profoundly complicated platform, and there's a steep learning curve to use it.
  • Customer support: AWS has not had particularly meaningful or useful customer support in our experience. You're really on your own with the platform.
If you need a powerful, fast and API-accessible storage or archiving solution, and you're willing to invest the time, S3 may be a great solution for you. If your use-case is particularly cost-sensitive, or if you are turned off by the complexity of Amazon's APIs (and the paucity of customer support), this may not be the platform for you. The additional cost and complexity of working with S3 really need to be worthwhile to take the plunge.
I should caveat this review with the fact that we have not paid for or used AWS Premium Support, so our support experience is with their baseline customer support setup, but we've found that lacking. Some of the biggest roadblocks we've run into have been resolved by random commenters on Stack Overflow, which is never a great state of affairs. Customer support is not a reason to recommend S3.
Read this authenticated review
September 11, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
S3 is a great cost effective static file storage tool that can be accessed from anywhere. We store all kinds of static files in S3 ranging from application data to configuration files to code and automation scripts. S3's access is controlled by IAM roles which allow for strict and tight control over which users are allowed to access which files.
  • Price - S3 is very cheap
  • Ease of use - It is an extremely simple service with basic upload, download, and list commands accessible via the web, APIs, and CLIs.
  • Security - S3's integration with IAM makes security easy and powerful.
  • Advanced searches - Searching within S3 for files can be a very painful process and very slow.
  • Dangerous - rogue users can do a lot of damage if you have important data stored in S3
  • The web interface can be difficult to use for inexperienced users.
If you have static files that are not frequently updated, then S3 is an extremely efficient and cheap place to store those files. Even if you aren't doing anything else in AWS, using S3 from outside of AWS is just as easy as using it from within AWS on an EC2 instance. Just upload your static files and access them whenever you need them.
I have not had much experience with the AWS S3 support team, so I have given this the score that best represents my experience with the typical AWS support team. AWS support is generally pretty good, but can sometimes be a little frustrating due to the mammoth machine that AWS is.
Read this authenticated review
September 08, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source

We are using S3 for storing compliance generated by various internal tools. The reports are not frequently accessed but we have legal guidelines for retention. We also use s3 to host static web interfaces with links to the document. It makes really easy to access the documents anywhere. We also use s3 to store various inputs to other AWS services such as AWS Sagemaker.

  • S3 provides a cost-effective, reliable, and durable way to store objects.
  • S3 can store files from almost any system with its great SDK and API.
  • S3 provides multiple tiers of storage which make it cost-effective based on usage.
  • I would like to see better control within the s3 bucket policies. It is hard to decide whether to use a bucket ACL or policy.
  • I would like to see the ability to lock down list permissions and still see it in the AWS console.
S3 is perfect for object storage. This means it cannot be used as a boot volume. It is good for serving files and storage backups. There are several price tiers and service levels. It takes several decisions to strike the right balance between what you are using it for and what is an acceptable cost level.
We subscribe to business level support and they always respond and fix our issues within 24hrs. This comes at a fixed cost of $100 per month but it covers all the other AWS services as well. The fact that we use other AWS services makes the value and response on the support side worth it.
Read this authenticated review
September 04, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use Amazon S3 for hosting all of our backups, our Apache Spark output files (in lieu of HDFS), our Snowflake external stages, our static website, etc. Additionally, we migrate our logs there for historical purposes. As far as file storage goes, it is able to meet all of our needs with little-to-no downtime.
  • S3 is very good with uptime
  • S3 is elastic and infinitely scalable
  • S3 is user-friendly
  • S3 is not good if you need to copy files a lot; it can be slow
  • S3 is not a replacement for a file system. It is blob storage, so things like updates and renames are impossible
  • S3 requires globally unique bucket names, which can be a challenge
S3 is suitable for static websites, Big Data (Spark or Hadoop) file system, in lieu of HDFS, and backups. S3 is not suitable for a file system replacement, frequent updates, or storing files that require renames.
Amazon Web Services (AWS) has amazing support for all of its products. Their Service Level Agreement (SLA) is to have 99.9% of uptime, and when they are unable to meet that, they will provide the user a credit towards their account. Additionally, they will help you troubleshoot any error messages you encounter from normal use.
Read this authenticated review
September 02, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
Storage of audio files for distribution using Cloudfront content delivery network.
Restoration of databases from file to RDS.
  • It's good for working with files across the entire AWS ecosystem.
  • It's good as a fast to set up source of large amounts of storage as needed for projects.
  • It's good as a storage location for third party devices and services that need a place to store data, backups, etc.
  • It is only object based storage. You can upload and download files. It is not like having a randomly accessible hard drive that you can host a live database on. There may be uses where S3 acting more like a randomly accessible hard drive would be useful.
  • Integration between other areas of the AWS ecosystem can be a bit difficult to set up and use. For example, file-based SQL server restores into RDS instances.
  • Some of the more complex functions need to be done by remote command line.
1. If you are building an infrastructure within AWS, S3 is a good fit for object type storage and other integrations.
2. If you require a content delivery network like AWS Cloudfront, S3 will be where your data is actually stored.
3. If you have third party products that are designed to work with S3 cloud storage.
Never had anything but good experiences with AWS support. It's especially useful when running your whole infrastructure on AWS services.
Read this authenticated review
August 27, 2019
Chris Barretto | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
This product is being used across the whole organization as a scalable file store for a variety of different file types. It is highly accessible (distributed CDNs) and very easily integrated into our system.
  • Accessibility
  • Integration
  • Ease of use
  • An easier way to set permissions per folder for reading/writing access
It is great for cheap, well-distributed, fast storage that is easy to use and manage. I can't think of a scenario where this would not be preferable as the default file store.
Never had to use support, but documentation is excellent
Read Chris Barretto's full review
March 29, 2019
Bob Smith | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
Amazon S3 is a foundational element used throughout our organization. It is used by applications to store documents, archive phone calls, store/share files, retain backups, transfer files to/from customers, etc.

It allows us to set metadata which also allows files to clean up after itself, which prevents our organization from storing information longer than needed which is wonderful (and keeps us only paying for what we really need to store). S3 is our go-to for any cloud storage needs as well as a location to host static content distributed through Cloudfront and provide public access to files as needed.
  • It has a good command line interface making it easy to use from anywhere
  • It has a well-built SDK across many languages allowing applications to integrate
  • You only pay for what you use, so there is no need to upgrade/downgrade storage capacity
  • S3 allows objects to store metadata allowing some very useful options (such as object expiration)
  • You can now use it to also see the metadata within your objects, such as images/videos metadata (location, duration, capture date, etc)
  • IAM allows you to control access to S3 to set proper permissions
  • It could be useful to have reports showing file usage/aging
  • It would be nice to be ale to query S3 without the need to look at each and every object
Amazon S3 is simple to use and easy to adopt. There is a myriad of tools which leverage S3 and it is becoming more fully integrated as an extenion to many store devices which find a need to integrate with the cloud. As storage goes, it can sometimes be slow, but it is robust and stable.
Read Bob Smith's full review
August 01, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
Amazon S3 is being widely used in our projects for multiple purposes. We are using S3 for storing deployment packages of our microservices. These services are automatically uploaded to S3 buckets thanks to S3 API and serverless application model. Also, we are using S3 Static web serving feature to serve our projects' APIs. It is a powerful feature which you can easily configure and publish your static website.
  • Storing and reading data from S3 buckets are very well designed. You can store any kind of data as you like.
  • The static website serving feature is great. You can serve your APIs in seconds if you are using Swagger like API development tools.
  • Access management of S3 Buckets are good. You can define private buckets or files easily.
  • POST, PUT and LIST requests are not free. If you are planning to store TBs of data and will download them frequently, It may be expensive.
If you are already using AWS products such as Lambda, EC2, etc. S3 will be well suited for storing deployment packages version by version. Also, you can serve your APIs by using the static website feature of S3. Apart from these features, you can use S3 to store your project's files as a backup or if your product is related to storing and reading data, S3 is one of the best solutions for these works.
Read this authenticated review
July 19, 2019
Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 9 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
The most popular IaaS service out there, Amazon S3 offers good infrastructure, speeds, API support, command line interface and also a great user interface for web access. We are using AWS services to support our business and hosting all the datasets on S3. S3 is typically used to upload and download content, and storing application-specific data. Also, this cloud-based service is HIPAA compliance, so we can store sensitive dataset without any compliance issues and security concerns. Enterprises can keep data secure, processes compliant and teams on the same page.
  • Data management and storage
  • Quick upload, download and move on EC2 instance
  • Security and HIPAA compliance
  • Folder sharing with multi level permission
  • APIs and libraries to access data through any programming language
  • Searching for the document is very hard, it allows only prefix to search the files.
  • Also, downloads require more than one click which irritates frequent users.
  • Price compared to service is a little bit high, still not a major concern.
Amazon S3 is a storage infrastructure under the umbrella of AWS. If you host any service that requires a quick and secure data transfer then S3 is the best solution. Also, in the case of multiprogramming language applications, S3 is the best option regarding compatibility with multiple programming languages. But if your requirement is just to store the dataset by manual effort and you want to share with others without the frequent requirement of data uploads and downloads, then Google Drive is better solution compare to S3.
Read this authenticated review
January 05, 2019
Justin Germino | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 7 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
In my case, I am using Amazon S3 with the Associated Cloud Front to host all my WordPress site static content and media to avoid overloading the web hosting provider. Leveraging the combination of Amazon S3 and CloudFront provides faster access to media files, content caching, and avoids unnecessary resource drain on the web server hosting resources directly.
  • Cheaper Storage Media Files
  • Easy to Implement with WordPress Seamlessly
  • Inexpensive
  • Can be a bit complex to set up with Cloud Front for CDN Performance.
  • Files names and conventions with how it integrates with WordPress make it hard to find original files specifically since they are renamed.
If you run self-hosted WordPress blogs and have a limited or small hosting plan, then the Amazon S3 Storage provides a great ROI to store your static content in the Amazon S3 Cloud. Ideal for images, video and any other static files you would have delivered on your website for viewers.
Read Justin Germino's full review
January 01, 2019
Matthew Gardner | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use Amazon's Simple Storage Service to store both static and somewhat dynamic assets. It is used in conjunction with Amazon's CloudFront service. It is a simple, cost-effective way to serve assets across our web apps, mobile apps, and websites. It solves the problem of reliable distribution at an affordable price, all wrapped up in a scalable solution. Between our various properties, we distribute over 1TB of data per month across millions of instances.
  • Scalable
  • Reliable
  • Well documented
  • Hard to use
  • Not for non-developers
  • Bad online UI
S3 is a VERY quick way to get up and running. Very simple for developers to use and have work. With the rest of Amazon's offerings, it can scale to be distributed via CDN, replicated, etc. If you need non-developers to store/update, though, this may not be the solution for you. The UI is far too confusing and easy to make a mistake on, and if you use CloudFront you need to invalidate, etc. with new uploads which is hard to grasp as a non-developer. As well, other companies have far less expensive solutions which scale just as well.
Read Matthew Gardner's full review
May 02, 2018
Andrew Raines | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use S3 for the storage of all our of static web assets (images, videos, audio, etc), user-uploaded data, internal log files, and backups. In addition to the storage uses, we also use the static website hosting feature for some of our web-based services. This is a particularly cost-effective way of getting a website online - either a small and simple HTML-based site or a complex single-page web application.
  • Storage! You can store as much as you like in whatever format and structure you like.
  • Pay as you go - you only pay for what you use, so your storage costs scale up and down with your storage and access patterns. No more having to provision space ahead of time or having wasted space floating around. It's also fairly inexpensive.
  • Static website hosting - really simple and easy to get going with, but surprisingly powerful. You can do everything from simple static websites to full Single Page Applications (assuming its all Javascript).
  • It isn't the cheapest out there for storage, but I think still represents good value for money. You do also have a large array of storage options which can lower the cost if you are willing to reduce reliability/robustness.
  • You can't use HTTPS off the bat with S3, so you almost always need to put CloudFront (or similar CDN) in front of it. Whilst this isn't a problem, it means it isn't quite as quick and straightforward to get going with as perhaps some other services.
  • Whilst generally very low latency, we have observed occasional latency spikes whilst retrieving objects. Assuming you are running a CDN in front of S3 (which you should) then this becomes less problematic, but it probably isn't the best choice if you absolutely must guarantee low latency.
Wherever you need to store things, S3 is pretty much the answer. Also, if you want to host simple websites without the cost or headache of scaling your own services, the static web hosting may be the answer you're looking for.
Read Andrew Raines's full review
January 22, 2018
Justin Schroeder | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We use S3 for everything imaginable, but particularly for storing larger assets like images, video, isos or data files. This allows us to purchase much smaller nodes in terms of attached SSDs. The cost of S3 for storage is almost a non-issue for anything in the sub-terabyte range, especially when compared to the price of larger EC2, Rackspace, or digital ocean instances.
  • Nearly every web framework now has integrations with the service as an easy plug-and-play storage solution.
  • General integration is so good there are tons of third-party tools like Transmit (for mac) you can mount S3 as a remote disk for easy access, and even Amazon's own web portal for using S3 has gotten quite good.
  • It's incredibly easy to offload all the expensive bandwidth operations for your typical website or app to S3, and, assuming your services are not yet HTTP2, you even get the benefits of sharding.
  • There is no true hierarchical filesystem in S3. So for example, if you have a file like /images/pizza/1.png, and you delete 1.png it deletes the entire directory structure. Now many tools will place an empty dummy file at /images/pizza to make it appear as if the structure is there – but if you do these operations via api it can be a bit of a gotchya.
  • The bucket namespace is global, so it can be really hard to get a sensible bucket name. Honestly no idea why they made that global.
  • While you can serve S3 content at your own subdomain, you have to have the proper bucket name to do so and this can get pretty cumbersome. Ideally, there would be a better way to mask S3 buckets at a DNS level.
Anytime – and I do mean anytime – you have files of any size over, say, 50kb and they are static you should reach for S3 first. In 7 years of using the service, I have never once lost a file. There have been a total of maybe 30 minutes of downtime in 7 years, which was a DNS level issue. The speed is excellent, the availability is incredible, and there simply is no good competitor for the price.
Read Justin Schroeder's full review
January 16, 2018
Bill Greganti | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 10 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User
Review Source
We are currently using S3 for off-site storage of backup data using a variety of backup client software. We utilize multiple Amazon sites for redundancy when needed. Some data is stored in our account using our software for our clients, and some data is stored in the client's account which we manage.
  • Multiple security access levels ensure that one client cannot access another clients data.
  • Multiple geographic locations allows us to meet certain audit requirements.
  • Simple setup from within many cloud backup clients.
  • Security configuration can be a little confusing and sometimes requires making completely new accounts.
Amazon S3 meets many of the demands for cloud based backup including some audit requirements for various DoD, HIPAA, and PCI restricted businesses. We store data with various levels of encryption and redundancy for our clients as required by their industry. There are also less expensive options, such as Glacier, in cases where audit compliance is not an issue.
Read Bill Greganti's full review

What is Amazon S3?

Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) is a cloud-based object storage service from Amazon Web Services. It offers scalability, data availability, security, and performance. It provides great utility for storage management and monitoring, access management and security, data querying, and data transfer.

It is suitable for businesses or organizations of any size to store and protect any amount of data for a range of use cases, such as websites, mobile applications, backup and restore, archive, enterprise applications, IoT devices, and big data analytics. Amazon S3 provides management features for organizing data and configuring access controls to meet business, organizational, and compliance requirements.

Amazon S3 Technical Details

Operating Systems: Unspecified
Mobile Application:No