Amazon S3 vs Google Cloud Storage

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

Amazon S3

45.6K
33K
+ 1
2K
Google Cloud Storage

1.4K
1.1K
+ 1
73
Add tool

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

What is Amazon S3? Store and retrieve any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web. Amazon Simple Storage Service provides a fully redundant data storage infrastructure for storing and retrieving any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web.

What is Google Cloud Storage? Durable and highly available object storage service. Google Cloud Storage allows world-wide storing and retrieval of any amount of data and at any time. It provides a simple programming interface which enables developers to take advantage of Google's own reliable and fast networking infrastructure to perform data operations in a secure and cost effective manner. If expansion needs arise, developers can benefit from the scalability provided by Google's infrastructure.

Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage can be categorized as "Cloud Storage" tools.

Some of the features offered by Amazon S3 are:

  • Write, read, and delete objects containing from 1 byte to 5 terabytes of data each. The number of objects you can store is unlimited.
  • Each object is stored in a bucket and retrieved via a unique, developer-assigned key.
  • A bucket can be stored in one of several Regions. You can choose a Region to optimize for latency, minimize costs, or address regulatory requirements. Amazon S3 is currently available in the US Standard, US West (Oregon), US West (Northern California), EU (Ireland), Asia Pacific (Singapore), Asia Pacific (Tokyo), Asia Pacific (Sydney), South America (Sao Paulo), and GovCloud (US) Regions. The US Standard Region automatically routes requests to facilities in Northern Virginia or the Pacific Northwest using network maps.

On the other hand, Google Cloud Storage provides the following key features:

  • High Capacity and Scalability
  • Strong Data Consistency
  • Google Developers Console Projects

"Reliable" is the top reason why over 589 developers like Amazon S3, while over 22 developers mention "Scalable" as the leading cause for choosing Google Cloud Storage.

According to the StackShare community, Amazon S3 has a broader approval, being mentioned in 3194 company stacks & 1559 developers stacks; compared to Google Cloud Storage, which is listed in 179 company stacks and 74 developer stacks.

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)
Recommends
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
Michira Griffins
Software Developer at Codeshares Ltd · | 1 upvotes · 72K 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
Decisions about Amazon S3 and Google Cloud Storage

So, I was working on a launcher for a few FNaF: Security Breach mods and I needed a place to host it's files and the mods. The launcher was about 70MB, one mod was 80MB and the other one 400MB.

Now, here's my issue: GCS was expensive as sh*t. In a single week it ate up one third of the free trial. Sure, I did host old versions for the sake of having a backup but honestly those prices were too high.

That simply isn't an issue with Spaces. They provide predictable costs and the host is just good. It does the job perfectly fine.

See more

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