We performed a comparison between Amazon S3 Glacier and Microsoft Azure File Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Public Cloud Storage Services solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Amazon S3 Glacier is a very cheap storage, where we store infrequently used data."
"AWS does support the ability for user controlled movement of data between regions for business continuance (BC), high availability (HA) and disaster recovery (DR)."
"I find Amazon S3 Glacier valuable for storing various documents like purchase orders, standard documents, and drawings."
"Data retrieval, security, compliance, and storage archiving are the most valuable features of Amazon S3 Glacier."
"The biggest advantage of the product is that AWS always copies the tool internally."
"Amazon S3 Glacier can integrate seamlessly with other AWS services."
"The product is easy to use."
"The solution is great for storing data you don't usually need access to. It's also well-integrated with Amazon S3."
"First of all, the solution is very secure. Secondly, the solution is very fast. It is reliable and available all the time."
"It's a scalable solution."
"The initial setup is straightforward and takes approximately twenty minutes."
"Azure File Storage gives good value for money, so I don't find it expensive."
"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."
"The solution is easy to use."
"General user familiarity with Office 365 products make adopting this solution easy to adopt in production."
"The immutable storage features are valuable."
"The solution's dashboard is a bit complicated and could be improved."
"The product is difficult to use."
"I believe the usage reporting could be simplified, particularly for billing purposes. Overall, I find Amazon S3 Glacier's reporting system somewhat confusing compared to other hyperscalers in the market."
"The user experience must be improved."
"They should increase the data limit for the free version or reduce the price."
"The product takes more time to secure data when the bandwidth is low."
"Although Amazon S3 Glacier is cheap, its data retrieval cost is very high compared to other solutions."
"The product needs to improve cloud security."
"The storage account key could be a security issue."
"Importing and exporting data needs to have a bit more documentation."
"The security could always be modernized."
"The solution is not user-friendly."
"There is room for improvement in helping customers understand and integrate Azure File Storage into their operations."
"If the file is large, there may be a delay in download time."
"Lacks integration with other platforms."
"Microsoft Azure File Storage is not that easy to use."
Amazon S3 Glacier is ranked 2nd in Public Cloud Storage Services with 35 reviews while Microsoft Azure File Storage is ranked 3rd in Public Cloud Storage Services with 42 reviews. Amazon S3 Glacier is rated 8.6, while Microsoft Azure File Storage is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Amazon S3 Glacier writes "A cost-effective solution to reduce storage and cost footprint". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Microsoft Azure File Storage writes "Various storage options available, high availability, and quick deployment". Amazon S3 Glacier is most compared with Google Cloud Storage Nearline, Google Cloud Storage, Wasabi, Amazon S3 and Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), whereas Microsoft Azure File Storage is most compared with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), Azure NetApp Files, Wasabi, Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage. See our Amazon S3 Glacier 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.
