Amazon S3 vs Microsoft Azure File Storage comparison

Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Amazon Web Services (AWS) Logo
8,712 views|5,262 comparisons
98% willing to recommend
Microsoft Logo
5,971 views|4,883 comparisons
97% willing to recommend
Comparison Buyer's Guide
Executive Summary
Updated on Oct 30, 2022

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.

  • Ease of Deployment: Amazon S3 users share mixed reviews on its ease of deployment. The majority of Microsoft Azure File Storage users say the initial setup is straightforward.
  • Features: Users of both products are happy with their stability and scalability.

    Amazon S3 users like that the solution is easy to manage and user friendly. Reviewers mention that it is missing mapping to Windows and that its security could be improved.

    Microsoft Azure File Storage users like the solution’s seamless integration, customization capabilities, and user interface. Reviewers also appreciate that it doesn’t require management of hardware or operating systems. Users say it can be tricky to manage the permissions and they would prefer if the solution could support all legacy storage systems.
  • Pricing: Amazon S3 users are happy with the solution’s pricing. Microsoft Azure File Storage users say the pricing is higher than Amazon’s.
  • Service and Support: Amazon S3 users share mixed reviews on the level of support they receive. In contrast, Microsoft Azure File Storage users report they are satisfied with the support.
  • ROI: Users of both solutions report a positive ROI.

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.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon S3 vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage Report (Updated: May 2024).
772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Featured Review
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use.
Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
"The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the accuracy and the life cycle policies, which help when moving from Amazon S3 to Amazon Glacier.""Feature-wise, Amazon S3 is the cheapest and it's reliable.""The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are the global availability, resiliency, and ease of access control.""The most valuable features are unlimited storage, scalability, and performance.""Amazon S3 is reliable.""The main aspect we like is that it's been easy to use.""Amazon S3 is easily accessible, fast and effective. Its performance is good.""The most valuable feature of Amazon S3 is its flexibility as a solution to suit many different use cases."

More Amazon S3 Pros →

"It helps us with geo-redundancy.""The storage in this solution is excellent.""The security features and the ease of integration are good.""What I like about Microsoft Azure File Storage is its convenience for customers, cost-effectiveness, and high availability.""Its simplicity of use is most valuable. It's easy to start working with it and understand it. It's easier to transfer files between different users. I'm able to move files from my device to my manager's device without any issues or without facing any problems in between.""The most valuable feature of Microsoft Azure File Storage is the cloud file storage capability.""It was quick to synchronize back from Azure to the on-premise server.""The best part is the accessibility to all the files."

More Microsoft Azure File Storage Pros →

Cons
"It is expensive for storing.""The tool needs to improve its flexibility in support.""You do need to get training on the setup process.""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 read drive speed is not as fast as it should be.""I would like to see the API for beginners improved because it is hard to understand.""If a certain resource is left unchecked, you can easily use a lot of it and drive up costs.""The pricing and licensing are pretty complex."

More Amazon S3 Cons →

"It's not very intuitive.""Firewall rules should be introduced to secure the access date from any virus attacks. Anti-virus should be introduced in the work filtering and document filtering.""Microsoft Azure File Storage is not that scalable. Once you reach the boundaries, you need to migrate to another solution.""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.""The upload speed has room for improvement.""Sometimes it takes very long to refresh the information.""Microsoft Azure File Storage should improve its pricing.""Considering the enterprise licensing required for the solution, the cost of the solution is an area where the product needs improvement."

More Microsoft Azure File Storage Cons →

Pricing and Cost Advice
  • "With S3 Standard, there is not a charge for deletion of objects."
  • "This solution has reasonable pricing and a low cost."
  • "The licensing is pay as you go, and I'm happy with the pricing."
  • "The cost of storage is cheap. However, the cost to have a better interface can get expensive. We are using Athena for this purpose and if we did some heavy queries the cost will start adding up. When the Athena query is running, it will scan the bucket and they charge for how many GBs we are going to scan. The function of scanning has a lot of costs attached to it, this is a negative point."
  • "The price of the Amazon S3 is low. The license model is based on what you use."
  • "The price of Amazon S3 depends on various variables. However, the price overall is fair."
  • "The price of Amazon S3 could be less expensive."
  • "The license of Amazon S3 is based on volume, capacity, and time. The overall price of the solution could improve. The support has to be added if you want it at an additional cost."
  • More Amazon S3 Pricing and Cost Advice →

  • "For one terabyte of data, we are spending about 150 Euro every month."
  • "One of the major benefits for AWS is that they have a very large customer representative base where clients can be picked from, they offer large discounts and credit. We were not able to receive the same kind of offers from Microsoft Azure File Storage. We tried to approach Azure while hiring for our disaster recovery discussion, but we didn't receive anything from Azure."
  • "The price is comparable to other competitive solutions."
  • "There are fewer hidden costs involved compared to other solutions, and when our customer is already a Microsoft partner, they typically have access to more affordable fees."
  • "Microsoft Azure File Storage has a reasonable price."
  • "I give the pricing of the solution a seven out of ten."
  • "One needs to pay according to the storage they plan to use in the solution. The payments are to be made yearly. It is usually monthly, but we opted for yearly subscriptions in our company."
  • "Microsoft Azure File Storage is expensive."
  • More Microsoft Azure File Storage Pricing and Cost Advice →

    report
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Public Cloud Storage Services solutions are best for your needs.
    772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    Questions from the Community
    Top Answer:We can easily connect to the AWS resources.
    Top Answer:Amazon S3 is a low-cost product. The solution is fairly priced. I rate the pricing a nine out of ten.
    Top Answer:The search option must be enabled in the UI to filter and retrieve files. The filter option must be provided within the directory. Users must be able to filter files based on the file name.
    Top Answer:Amazon EFS is easy to set up: you can use the AWS management console, API, or command-line. Amazon EFS can grow to petabytes and deliver consistent low latencies and high levels of throughput. This… more »
    Top Answer:The price could be reduced. The tiered pricing model is good. The solution is a bit pricey compared to AWS and Google. We pay as we use.
    Ranking
    Views
    8,712
    Comparisons
    5,262
    Reviews
    49
    Average Words per Review
    377
    Rating
    8.8
    Views
    5,971
    Comparisons
    4,883
    Reviews
    31
    Average Words per Review
    400
    Rating
    8.2
    Comparisons
    Also Known As
    S3, Simple Storage Service
    MS Azure File Storage
    Learn More
    Overview

    Amazon Simple Storage Service is storage for the Internet. It is designed to make web-scale computing easier for developers.

    Amazon S3 has a simple web services interface that you can use to store and retrieve any amount of data, at any time, from anywhere on the web. It gives any developer access to the same highly scalable, reliable, fast, inexpensive data storage infrastructure that Amazon uses to run its own global network of web sites. The service aims to maximize benefits of scale and to pass those benefits on to developers.

    Fully managed file shares that use the standard SMB 3.0 protocol

    Key scenarios:

    • Share data across on-premises and cloud servers
    • Migrate file share-based applications to the cloud with no code changes
    • Integrate modern applications with File storage
    • Simplify hosting for high availability workload data
    Sample Customers
    Netflix, Airbnb, Thomson Reuters, Zillow, Alert Logic
    Talon, Camden
    Top Industries
    REVIEWERS
    Computer Software Company30%
    Financial Services Firm13%
    Real Estate/Law Firm10%
    Comms Service Provider10%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Educational Organization68%
    Computer Software Company5%
    Financial Services Firm4%
    Manufacturing Company3%
    REVIEWERS
    Financial Services Firm19%
    Construction Company19%
    Manufacturing Company13%
    Computer Software Company13%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Computer Software Company17%
    Financial Services Firm10%
    Manufacturing Company8%
    Government7%
    Company Size
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business36%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise49%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business8%
    Midsize Enterprise72%
    Large Enterprise20%
    REVIEWERS
    Small Business41%
    Midsize Enterprise17%
    Large Enterprise41%
    VISITORS READING REVIEWS
    Small Business23%
    Midsize Enterprise15%
    Large Enterprise62%
    Buyer's Guide
    Amazon S3 vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage
    May 2024
    Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon S3 vs. Microsoft Azure File Storage and other solutions. Updated: May 2024.
    772,649 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    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.