Acronis Cyber Protect helps you safeguard your data from various threats while natively integrating your data protection and cybersecurity.
$85
per year
Amazon S3
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
Amazon S3 is a cloud-based object storage service from Amazon Web Services. It's key features are storage management and monitoring, access management and security, data querying, and data transfer.
N/A
Pricing
Acronis Cyber Protect
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Editions & Modules
Acronis Cyber Protect
$85
per year
Acronis Cyber Protect
$85
per year
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Acronis Cyber Protect
Amazon S3
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Acronis Cyber Protect
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Considered Both Products
Acronis Cyber Protect
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Acronis Cyber Protect
Veeam is gold, but it can't back up the VMs using snapshots on Scale hypervisor. In my opinion, Acronis Cyber Protect can't do anything right that Veeam can do with ease.
We've looked at SolarWinds, Veritas, etc. but none of them had the right combination of features, price and ease of use when compared against Acronis and its ease of implementation, setup and recovery options. We didn't like the wait time for recovery with some of the others …
Acronis Cyber Backup is a fantastic product that provides service and quality of product that is a step above the competition. The software is incredibly reliable. It’s easy to use and just works as it is intended. Backups complete fast, compression rates are incredibly high, …
Both Acronis Backup and Macrium Reflect provide basic backup services. I feel like Macrium is aimed more towards personal use. Acronis's cloud options were a key difference for us.
I began to compare Symantec against Acronis, because Symantec was the only software for backups and restoring that I knew. But Acronis, besides it being a little more expensive, has the best functionality and saves more time between restoring and backups for me.
Those products are all very similar. They all have pros and cons, but at the end of the day, they are all very much the same. You pick the one that you like the most, you definitely have to try many. For us, we use it for end user computers, and use something else for VMs, and …
We found the pricing, pre-sales technical support, customer service, billing, and post-sales technical support to be above par as compared to almost all other enterprise backup solutions. Some were equal or better in one or more areas, but no one had as high of marks as Acronis …
I used this in place of Backup Exec and was extremely pleased with it. Backup Exec is really confusing and the backups are unreliable. I loved replacing it with Acronis.
Acronis allows us to use lower cost storage hardware and a reasonably priced cloud storage. Datto is a great product, but the cost is much higher. iDrive was not able to backup every type of endpoint.
Acronis does not slow your system down when running backups as Symantec did. Some people have an issue with CPU's being impacted but overall it's not an issue.
I have been a continual user of products from this company for so many years now that I cannot even recall the names of other products that I attempted using in the past. I believe I have been using the system for a little over 15 years.
Barracuda Cloud Essentials has email security, archiving, and allows users to manage their own spam email. Barracuda also comes with a backup feature and it all works together under one roof. Barracuda has been our alternative to other major services on the market. Acronis does …
Acronis is the best software only solution. Veeam has many flavors and does a superb (and more scalable) job of backing up data and replicating it offsite. Backup Exec is the oldest big player and has not done a lot to keep up with the competitors. Carbonite is a cloud-backup …
We had in place a Symantec Backup Exec (2014) solution in place - this was running on a physical device with an attached tape library. This would be perfect for a smaller company needing cost-effective off-site storage.
We opted for Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) solution as most of our workloads run on AWS and this saves as bandwidth costs. Otherwise the solutions are similar in capabilities for our needs.
Amazon S3 integrates way better with other AWS services and tools, making it the quick choice for your AWS based application. Furthermore, the pricing for Amazon S3 is very competitive and it has all the security and access capabilities to enable your application. Google …
Pricing and Cost Structure are best:Amazon S3:Offers multiple storage classes: Standard, Intelligent-Tiering, Standard-IA (Infrequent Access), One Zone-IA, Glacier, and Glacier Deep Archive while other were costly and figuring out the monthly costs were difficult. The …
Amazon S3 has so much other functionality than it's competitors with so many more use cases. We use One Drive, Drop Box, Teams, Google Drive and other products for basic file sharing while working with partners and clients but that's kind of the extent of those products. S3 …
More robust and feature rich. Also more cost effective. However, the other options do lend themselves to be better at user friendliness. But if your technological and willing to look up help in the support knowledgebase you will do just fine and get a better product at …
When we were implementation the solution of our issue then we find Azure and Google Cloud Storage platforms but we were unable to find the proper documentation for the platform as compared to S3, So we moved to S3 and discarded the other options. Cost wise there are only some …
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is the only AWS offering for object storage. DynamoDB is fantastic for unstructured data but does not handle object storage. The relational database service (RDS) is excellent but only applies to use cases with structured table data, and does …
All other alternatives are also good but as our infrastructure was on AWS, Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) was a better choice due to its better integration with other AWS services. It was serving the purpose in an economical way. All of our needs were being fulfilled by …
Amazon S3 is the business driving arrangement by Amazon Web Services. It has answers for all startup's and huge venture. The expense viability is one reason that I have chosen the Amazon S3 over other
We are an AWS shop, thus it is much easier to use with other AWS services. It may not always be the cheapest but once you are in AWS if you can decouple your apps and use this as one of your services it will certainly make developer's life easier and admin life easier.
S3 is the most mature simple storage service on the web. It has direct competitors from Google and Azure, as well as a bunch of other competitors that focus on different aspects. For example, Backblaze specializes on file backups, and while s3 can also be used for that, …
We had already decided to use Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) for other compute services, so it made sense to use Amazon for blob storage as well. By using the same cloud vendor, we can more easily integrate between AWS services like Cloudfront. Blob storage is essentially a …
Amazon S3 provides a variety of tools for uploading short and large objects to the cloud. AWS S3 is a key-value store, one of the major categories of NoSQL databases used for accumulating voluminous, mutating, unstructured, or semistructured data. S3 object retrieval is fast. …
They're both great. I really don't know the differences, but both have the same basic set of features, in my opinion. But, S3 is widely know as a greater tool, safer, and much easier. Also, it's used by and compatible with a lot of applications around the world. That made us …
I think [Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)] is cheaper than Azure Blob Storage (at least at the time I selected it). It is a low maintenance product and it is more reliable.
The main differences are that S3 files can be accessed publicly without having an account on the service so it is suitable for website assets, but the other services have desktop hard drive syncing applications so they are more suitable for sharing files to other staff in the …
Google Cloud Storage provides many of the same features as Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service), but they differ quite a bit in the database integrations they provide. The main reason we had to use Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is because our main infrastructure cloud …
AWS probably has the most difficult UI to learn but it's the far better service. Google is probably second but it has storage limitations and there are some security concerns (still a good tool for collaboration) The Microsoft products are the worst IMO. They're slow and have the …
If you don't have to manage your client's email and their email archiver Acronis works very well. If you're looking for just a backup service for what's on a particular computer then Acronis is perfect. It is easy to use, so newcomers are not overwhelmed with features.It does not include as robust features as Barracuda and Cloudberry, but it does work well as just a backup.
For archiving old data that is infrequently accessed it is perfect. You can choose to let it go into cold/glacier storage which saves even further costs but at the expense of accessibility. I like that you can set access rules to automatically move it to the next storage tier after a certain amount of time that it has not been accessed. I also use it a lot with PHP via the API. We have some custom in-house applications that have a fair amount of data uploaded into them. S3 has been a perfect solution to store these files, taking the load off web servers and never having issues with running out of storage.
It's really easy to automate a backup. You can choose where you want the back up to be stored (locally or online) and how frequent you want your backups to be. And then just let it run on schedule.
It's very customizable. You can choose what you want to back up, where you want to back it up to and how frequently your backups should run.
Recovery is (I have only had to do it once) really fast and smooth. I was able to get back to a working state without calling in for support and all my stuff was right where I expected it to be.
It is very reliable. Backups very rarely fail and are easy to fix when they do.
Reliable and secure way to store objects in cloud: Storing any type of file(text, pdf, doc, csv, etc) is very easy with S3. Fetching this stored content as and when you require is also pretty easy and can be done using both the console and AWS CLI. Appropriate permissions can be set up for buckets using IAM roles/policies.
Versioning in buckets: S3 gives you a very handy feature to store multiple versions of objects stored in a bucket.
Lifecycle policies: You can set up lifecycle policies in S3 that can move your older objects to IA or Glacier. This setup is very easy and can be done within minutes for a bucket.
Replication: The cross-region replication that S3 provides is wonderful. Beware of the inter-regional data transfer costs though.
The biggest problem is to rename the bucket. There is no direct way to do it. One need to copy entire content to the different bucket with intended bucket name and then remove the old bucket. Sometimes it creates issues.
There is no direct way to upload .zip file and extract it to inside the bucket.
While uploading large files, sometimes you will find a drop of upload speed. I observe it so many times and while checking my internet speed, I find it absolutely perfect. So there must have something wrong on the AWS side.
We have renewed our subscription over the course of a few years now. We used to use Backup Exec and it was tedious and difficult to obtain our backups when needed. Acronis just fits our environment style and the way we prefer to do business and use our third party software.
Although the capacity range for the price is impressive, the access to the user console is not trivial and it is necessary to be guided for the first visits. And also since there a broad support of data storage technologies for back-ups, the connection process can be sometimes tricky, not surprisingly. It is why the Professionnal Services teams is so important at Acronis to help facilitate the installation processes.
The UI could have some improvements (better filters) and there is a lack of some useful functionality, such as renaming an existing bucket: the latter is much needed in the context of rapidly evolving companies. Overall though, Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) is easy to use and to onboard people and tools to, thanks to its various APIs and flexibility.
I only got one issue resolved for more than 20 cases open. The escalation is ineffective. Most of the time, I have the feeling that I know the solution better than the support technician. Overall, case management is time-consuming, as our resolution rate is really low
It depends on your tier within Amazon on how great of support you get. For us we have a dedicated Point of Contact that is great in taking in what we need and discussing it with the S3 team. The best thing is features we need or suggest have a good chance of landing on their roadmap.
I don't have any real key 'insights' per say except that it wasn't difficult at all, and do not be afraid to dabble in its tools and settings. It is quite intuitive with built in common sense. I cannot say enough good things about our companies experience when using this backup software.
Acronis allows us to use lower cost storage hardware and a reasonably priced cloud storage. Datto is a great product, but the cost is much higher. IDrive was not able to backup every type of endpoint.
S3 is the most mature simple storage service on the web. It has direct competitors from Google and Azure, as well as a bunch of other competitors that focus on different aspects. For example, Backblaze specializes on file backups, and while s3 can also be used for that, Backblaze provides a better price point in exchange for more focused functionality. S3 really shines in that it performs simple things astonishingly well, while also being flexible enough to stretch itself to other situations (data lakes, file mounts, backup/restores systems, web hosting, etc.).
The ability to back up multiple servers from one source is a great tool to have for businesses that have equipment in different locations on the same network with a variety of software data to back up such as SQL, Exchange or a Files Server. You can decide to purchase individual server licenses as well if you would like to keep the process separate or have multiple sites where your data is housed.
Allows us to store large amounts of raw traffic from data providers to allow us to view data our systems received at particular times, in order to reconstruct inputs in case of errors
Is capable of storing very large amounts of data cheaply without material impact to our business