Amazon S3 vs Google Cloud Storage

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Amazon S3

+ 1
Google Cloud Storage

+ 1
Add tool

Amazon S3 vs Google Cloud Storage: What are the differences?


Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage are two popular cloud storage solutions that offer secure and scalable storage for various applications and use cases. While they provide similar functionality, there are some key differences between the two platforms that set them apart. In this article, we will explore six key differences between Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage.

  1. Pricing model: Amazon S3 offers a pricing model based on the amount of data stored, data transfer, and specific usage patterns. In contrast, Google Cloud Storage follows a simpler pricing model based on the amount of data stored and data egress (outbound data transfer). Google Cloud Storage's pricing is generally considered more straightforward and predictable compared to Amazon S3.

  2. Storage classes: Both Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage provide different storage classes to optimize cost and performance. Amazon S3 offers different storage classes like Standard, Intelligent-Tiering, Glacier, and Glacier Deep Archive, each designed for specific use cases. Google Cloud Storage, on the other hand, provides Standard, Nearline, Coldline, and Archive storage classes. The availability and characteristics of these storage classes may vary, providing flexibility to choose the most suitable option based on requirements.

  3. Multi-region replication: Amazon S3 offers the capability of automatic replication of data across multiple regions, providing high availability and disaster recovery options. This feature allows users to distribute their data across geographically diverse regions for better performance and resilience. Google Cloud Storage, however, requires users to set up their own replication mechanisms using tools like Google Cloud Storage Transfer Service or by implementing custom scripts.

  4. Data transfer performance: Amazon S3 is known for its high data transfer performance, especially for large object sizes. It employs a highly scalable architecture that can handle incredibly high request rates and support parallel data transfers. Google Cloud Storage, although it also provides efficient data transfer, may have slightly lower performance compared to Amazon S3 in certain scenarios.

  5. Integration with ecosystem: Amazon S3 has been widely adopted and has a rich ecosystem of third-party tools and services that integrate seamlessly with its storage platform. This broad support makes it easier to build and deploy applications using Amazon S3 as the underlying storage solution. Google Cloud Storage, while continuously expanding its ecosystem, may have fewer third-party integrations compared to Amazon S3.

  6. Data consistency models: Both Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage guarantee strong read-after-write consistency within a single bucket. However, for cross-bucket or cross-region scenarios, they employ different consistency models. Amazon S3 provides eventual consistency for cross-region replication, while Google Cloud Storage offers strong consistency for reads and writes within a single region but eventual consistency for global access.

In summary, Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage differ in their pricing models, storage classes, multi-region replication capabilities, data transfer performance, integration with third-party ecosystems, and data consistency models. Understanding these differences can help organizations choose the most suitable cloud storage solution for their specific needs.

Advice on Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage

Hello! I have a mobile app with nearly 100k MAU, and I want to add a cloud file storage service to my app.

My app will allow users to store their image, video, and audio files and retrieve them to their device when necessary.

I have already decided to use PHP & Laravel as my backend, and I use Contabo VPS. Now, I need an object storage service for my app, and my options are:

  • Amazon S3 : It sounds to me like the best option but the most expensive. Closest to my users (MENA Region) for other services, I will have to go to Europe. Not sure how important this is?

  • DigitalOcean Spaces : Seems like my best option for price/service, but I am still not sure

  • Wasabi: the best price (6 USD/MONTH/TB) and free bandwidth, but I am not sure if it fits my needs as I want to allow my users to preview audio and video files. They don't recommend their service for streaming videos.

  • Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage: Good price but not sure about them.

  • There is also the self-hosted s3 compatible option, but I am not sure about that.

Any thoughts will be helpful. Also, if you think I should post in a different sub, please tell me.

See more
Replies (2)
Michira Griffins
Software Developer at Codeshares Ltd · | 1 upvotes · 115.3K views

If pricing is the issue i'd suggest you use digital ocean, but if its not use amazon was digital oceans API is s3 compatible

See more
Cloudways Cloudways

Hello Mohammad, I am using : Cloudways >> AWS >> Bahrain for last 2 years. This is best I consider out of my 10 year research on Laravel hosting.

See more
Decisions about Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage

Minio is a free and open source object storage system. It can be self-hosted and is S3 compatible. During the early stage it would save cost and allow us to move to a different object storage when we scale up. It is also fast and easy to set up. This is very useful during development since it can be run on localhost.

See more

We choose Backblaze B2 because it makes more sense for storing static assets.

We admire Backblaze's customer service & transparency, plus, we trust them to maintain fair business practices - including not raising prices in the future.

Lower storage costs means we can keep more data for longer, and lower bandwidth means cache misses don't cost a ton.

See more
Gabriel Pa

We offer our customer HIPAA compliant storage. After analyzing the market, we decided to go with Google Storage. The Nodejs API is ok, still not ES6 and can be very confusing to use. For each new customer, we created a different bucket so they can have individual data and not have to worry about data loss. After 1000+ customers we started seeing many problems with the creation of new buckets, with saving or retrieving a new file. Many false positive: the Promise returned ok, but in reality, it failed.

That's why we switched to S3 that just works.

See more
Get Advice from developers at your company using StackShare Enterprise. Sign up for StackShare Enterprise.
Learn More