We performed a comparison between Amazon S3 and Microsoft Azure File Storage based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Users of Amazon S3 mention that the solution is missing the mapping to Windows feature like Azure File Storage has. It also received mixed reviews on service and support. For these reasons, Azure File Storage is the more valued solution.
"We've had no issues with stability."
"Amazon S3 is a stable solution."
"Some of the most valuable features are how convenient and easy to use S3 is. It's nicely integrated with AWS and is available on the AWS console."
"We appreciate that this solution is relatively easy to use, straightforward, and reliable."
"Amazon S3 is very flexible and provides high storage."
"The most valuable feature is the sharing capabilities."
"Amazon S3's best features are its reliability and capacity to expand."
"The most valuable feature of the product is storage classes."
"The initial setup is straightforward and takes approximately twenty minutes."
"The storage in this solution is excellent."
"I like that we can copy and download data using Azure. It's not just for file storage; we can also use it for large data sets or to host static web applications."
"My client had zero data loss while using the solution for backups and file security."
"Integration with the entire Azure platform."
"First of all, the solution is very secure. Secondly, the solution is very fast. It is reliable and available all the time."
"Implementing Microsoft Azure has meant that we are using the same solution as our customers who use Azure Public Cloud. This allows us to integrate our application, as well as provide the solution to them."
"We have not explored the desktop performance analysis of the file storage, but the user interface, API, and the response that we receive over the file storage are very good. We have a lot of customers that connect to the client-side, click the images, and upload them. The beauty of the solution is that we can mount the file storage into a critical server as well as an external drive. The speed that we receive with the images is pretty good."
"We would like to see improvement in the ability to moves files within this solution. At present the process is not straightforward, and requires us to download files to our micro service service before then uploading into the solution. In addition, the transfer bit rate for the process is very slow."
"I would like there to be more support without needing to use Transfer Family."
"Amazon S3 could improve the load balancers. They are very basic compared to other solutions in the industry, such as F5. It has to be able to be analyzed up to a certain level."
"The UI should be more user-friendly."
"We have cold storage here, and I think that's useful. When it comes to commercialization, it's cheaper to put data that you won't be using into the data storage. You only use a little bit of the data needed each day for your transition, so you pay less."
"Amazon S3 could improve by having more frequent updates."
"The tool needs to improve its flexibility in support."
"The tool helps us with data backup storage of payment files and helps us avoid issues with clients when we miss the data. For instance, in the payment file of my Google client, you can find details of one-to-one transactions like the payment information on the file header, payment ID, payment client ID, group headers, etc. We get these details into the file format of ISO which is the accepted format at JP Morgan & Chase. Once we get the file format, we process it through S3."
"If the file is large, there may be a delay in download time."
"Licensing costs are expensive."
"The product name keeps changing. It can be confusing when product names change frequently, especially with Microsoft. Sometimes, if you refer to a product by a certain name last year, it might have a different name six months later."
"A lot of things could be better, especially when it comes to accessing File Storage for monitoring. Azure Copy is fine, but there could be additional integration and security features for those who want more privacy and control over access to Azure."
"Microsoft Azure File Storage should improve its pricing."
"Sometimes it takes very long to refresh the information."
"Considering the enterprise licensing required for the solution, the cost of the solution is an area where the product needs improvement."
"I have had issues migrating my data to another subscription."
Amazon S3 is ranked 1st in Public Cloud Storage Services with 70 reviews while Microsoft Azure File Storage is ranked 3rd in Public Cloud Storage Services with 44 reviews. Amazon S3 is rated 8.8, while Microsoft Azure File Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon S3 writes "Cloud Conversations: AWS S3 Overview". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure File Storage writes "Various storage options available, high availability, and quick deployment". Amazon S3 is most compared with Oracle Cloud Object Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Amazon S3 Glacier, Google Cloud Storage and Zadara, whereas Microsoft Azure File Storage is most compared with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Azure NetApp Files, Wasabi, Amazon S3 Glacier and Google Cloud Storage. See our Amazon S3 vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage report.
See our list of best Public Cloud Storage Services vendors.
We monitor all Public Cloud Storage Services reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
