We performed a comparison between Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) and Amazon S3 Glacier based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Cloud Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup was straightforward."
"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."
"The solution's technical support is good."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations."
"We can run code and deploy it whenever we want."
"Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface."
"EFS is flexible."
"We are not that big of a cloud user. We just use it for the storage of our bytes. The most valuable aspect is the storage."
"I like the price. If you compare Glacier to others, the prices in terms of what you store beyond retention are much lower."
"Amazon S3 Glacier is scalable, flexible, easy to maintain and handle."
"I find Amazon S3 Glacier valuable for storing various documents like purchase orders, standard documents, and drawings."
"It is a very comprehensive tool."
"It is the most feature-rich platform."
"The pricing is low, and it's dedicated to archiving is valuable to us."
"The reliability of storage is the main benefit."
"The solution is secure."
"Around 80 percent of the features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are available on Linux and not in Windows, making it a major drawback of the product."
"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"It should be simplified. There are people who don't have cloud experience. It should be storage that we are able to just connect to."
"The interface seems strange and complicated."
"It could be better in connecting with Windows Server instances."
"The user activity needs to be more connected."
"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."
"The solution's dashboard is a bit complicated and could be improved."
"A couple of times, we faced outage issues that caused us problems."
"Billing issues can be a nightmare. It's tough reaching the right person to get them sorted out."
"Amazon S3 Glacier could be more secure."
"The solution's cloud storage is very expensive, and users may not be able to afford cloud storage."
"The response times could be faster. When you are with Amazon and use Glacier, you expect a response time between four to seven hours to retrieve the data."
"Amazon S3 Glacier is a cheaper tool if you're running it on-prem, but it is expensive if deployed on the cloud."
"The product is difficult to use."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is ranked 6th in Cloud Storage with 10 reviews while Amazon S3 Glacier is ranked 2nd in Public Cloud Storage Services with 35 reviews. Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is rated 8.6, while Amazon S3 Glacier is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) writes "Offers integration capabilities that improve areas like storage and security". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Amazon S3 Glacier writes "A cost-effective solution to reduce storage and cost footprint". Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is most compared with Microsoft Azure File Storage, Google Cloud Storage, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Azure NetApp Files and Oracle Cloud Object Storage, whereas Amazon S3 Glacier is most compared with Google Cloud Storage Nearline, Google Cloud Storage, Microsoft Azure File Storage, Wasabi and Oracle Cloud Archive Storage. See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Amazon S3 Glacier report.
We monitor all Cloud Storage 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.
