Top 10 Oracle Database Backup Service Alternatives

4.1 out of 5

10 reviews
100% willing to recommend

120 followers

Top Oracle Database Backup Service Competitors

Discover the top alternatives and competitors to Oracle Database Backup Service based on the interviews we conducted with its users. The top alternative solutions include Microsoft Azure File Storage, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), and Amazon S3 Glacier. The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.

Oracle Alternatives Report

Learn what solutions real users are comparing with Oracle, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.

Get the alternatives report

Microsoft Azure File Storage

4.1 out of 5

Microsoft Azure File Storage

4.1 out of 5

Microsoft Azure File Storage integrates seamlessly with Azure services and offers efficient file sharing capabilities, making it a cost-effective choice. In comparison, Oracle Database Backup Service provides reliable, secure backup and recovery tailored for Oracle databases, justifying its investment with advanced, specialized features.

Download Microsoft Azure File Storage vs. Oracle Database Backup Service Report

Pricing

Microsoft Azure File Storage offers a lower setup cost, while Oracle Database Backup Service requires a higher initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

Microsoft Azure File Storage offers a lower setup cost, while Oracle Database Backup Service requires a higher initial investment.

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

4.2 out of 5

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

4.2 out of 5

Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) provides simple, scalable file storage for use with Amazon EC2 instances in the AWS Cloud. Amazon EFS is easy to use and offers a simple interface that allows you to create and configure file systems quickly and easily. With Amazon EFS, storage capacity is elastic, growing and shrinking automatically as you add and remove files, so your applications have the storage they need, when they need it.

Download Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Oracle Database Backup Service Report

Pricing

It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage.

The solution's price is mid-ranged.

View comparison

Pricing

It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage.

The solution's price is mid-ranged.

Amazon S3 Glacier

4.3 out of 5

Amazon S3 Glacier

4.3 out of 5

Amazon S3 Glacier offers cost-effective storage and retrieval for large-scale archiving. In comparison, Oracle Database Backup Service excels with seamless Oracle database integration and comprehensive backup functionalities. Amazon’s economical pricing contrasts Oracle's higher ROI due to reliability and feature-rich performance.

Download Amazon S3 Glacier vs. Oracle Database Backup Service Report

Pricing

Amazon S3 Glacier has a lower setup cost, while Oracle Database Backup Service has higher initial expenses. These differences make Amazon S3 Glacier more affordable upfront compared to Oracle Database Backup Service.

View comparison

Pricing

Amazon S3

4.4 out of 5

Amazon S3

4.4 out of 5

Amazon S3 appeals to users for its competitive pricing and smooth integration. In comparison, Oracle Database Backup Service attracts customers due to its advanced security measures and seamless compatibility within the Oracle ecosystem. Amazon S3's straightforward deployment contrasts with Oracle's detailed but complex configurations.

Download Amazon S3 vs. Oracle Database Backup Service Report

Pricing

The setup cost for Amazon S3 is typically lower than the Oracle Database Backup Service. Oracle Database Backup Service tends to have higher initial expenses, reflecting its robust enterprise-level features compared to Amazon S3.

View comparison

Pricing

Azure NetApp Files

4.0 out of 5

Azure NetApp Files

4.0 out of 5

Oracle Database Backup Service offers robust stability and integration for Oracle environments. In comparison, Azure NetApp Files is noted for its superior flexibility and performance. Oracle focuses on seamless integration with Oracle systems, while Azure provides advanced features suited for diverse workloads and environments.

Download Azure NetApp Files vs. Oracle Database Backup Service Report

Pricing

Oracle Database Backup Service has a higher setup cost, whereas Azure NetApp Files offers a lower initial investment.

View comparison

Pricing

Oracle Database Backup Service has a higher setup cost, whereas Azure NetApp Files offers a lower initial investment.

Wasabi

4.1 out of 5

Wasabi

4.1 out of 5

Oracle Database Backup Service offers robust integration and scalability, suitable for enterprise needs. In comparison, Wasabi provides simplicity and rapid deployment. Oracle's customer support ensures thorough assistance, whereas Wasabi's cost-effectiveness and quick ROI make it appealing for budget-conscious buyers.

Download Oracle Database Backup Service vs. Wasabi Report

Pricing

Oracle Database Backup Service has a higher setup cost compared to Wasabi, making Wasabi a more budget-friendly option for initial setup.

View comparison

Pricing

Oracle Database Backup Service has a higher setup cost compared to Wasabi, making Wasabi a more budget-friendly option for initial setup.

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS)

4.5 out of 5

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS)

4.5 out of 5

Oracle Database Backup Service offers reliability and affordability, making it ideal for budget-conscious buyers. In comparison, Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) provides advanced scalability and integration, suitable for large-scale operations. Oracle’s easy deployment is preferred over Nutanix’s customization, but Nutanix promises greater long-term ROI.

Download Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs. Oracle Database Backup Service Report

Pricing

Oracle Database Backup Service has a lower initial setup cost, while Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) involves a higher setup cost, highlighting their pricing differences.

View comparison

Pricing

Oracle Database Backup Service has a lower initial setup cost, while Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) involves a higher setup cost, highlighting their pricing differences.

Google Cloud Storage Nearline

4.1 out of 5

Google Cloud Storage Nearline

4.1 out of 5

Google Cloud Storage Nearline offers affordable pricing and efficient support. In comparison, Oracle Database Backup Service provides advanced features despite higher costs. A tech buyer might choose Google for cost-effectiveness and rapid deployment or Oracle for superior data protection and comprehensive backup capabilities.

Download Google Cloud Storage Nearline vs. Oracle Database Backup Service Report

Pricing

Google Cloud Storage Nearline has a lower setup cost while Oracle Database Backup Service involves higher expenses.

View comparison

Pricing

Google Cloud Storage Nearline has a lower setup cost while Oracle Database Backup Service involves higher expenses.

Microsoft Azure Object Storage

4.0 out of 5

Microsoft Azure Object Storage

4.0 out of 5

Microsoft Azure Object Storage excels in scalability, Azure integration, and cost management. In comparison, Oracle Database Backup Service offers robust data protection and strong Oracle integration. Azure's ease of deployment stands out, whereas Oracle users benefit from its dedicated customer service and long-term ROI.

Download Microsoft Azure Object Storage vs. Oracle Database Backup Service Report

Pricing

Microsoft Azure Object Storage has a higher setup cost compared to Oracle Database Backup Service, making Microsoft Azure Object Storage potentially more expensive initially.

View comparison

Pricing

Microsoft Azure Object Storage has a higher setup cost compared to Oracle Database Backup Service, making Microsoft Azure Object Storage potentially more expensive initially.

Related categories

Public Cloud Storage Services

Cloud Storage

File and Object Storage