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
CrashPlan
Score 7.7 out of 10
N/A
CrashPlan® provides secure, scalable, and straightforward endpoint data backup, to help organizations recover from any worst-case scenario, whether it is a disaster, simple human error, a stolen laptop, ransomware, or an as-of-yet-undiscovered calamity.
N/A
Pricing
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
CrashPlan
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon S3
CrashPlan
Free Trial
No
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Discount available for annual billing.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
CrashPlan
Considered Both Products
Amazon S3
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Amazon S3
S3 is excellent but has a different use case than ebs. As ebs can be used as a filesystem, s3 bucket stores objects
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 …
CrashPlan (in my specific case the CrashPlan Pro or CrashPlan for Small Business (there seems to be somewhat of an ongoing identity crisis with the products) is significantly lower overhead, in terms of cost and complexity, when compared to the other two products I have …
Mostly the price is what drew me to CrashPlan -others I have used are expensive per GB storage and difficult to manage. Carbonite was costing $1000.00 a year for 1 server with 2 TB of data. CrashPlan helps keep down the cost and the client spends much less time paying me to …
Both of the entries I put need a dedicated VM or physical server to be utilized. VEEAM can be installed as a VM or on a physical server, but Unitrends has a dedicated server needed as a purchased product in order to get the backups running. CrashPlan is a simple install on any …
Unitrends is our primary backup solution here at my place of employment, and I have no complaints. It does on-prem backups to a storage pool and with that, we chose not to also use Unitrends could storage as the cost was pretty high. Crashplan has a low cost and we were …
Both AppAssure and Acronis Disaster Recovery Service was used in the IT business management firm in which I worked. AppAssure required off sight storage. It was challenging in that the size of offsite storage was an additional cost and rolling up could take hours. Restoring …
I have used SOS online backup. SOS might have had some advantages and was fairly easy to use, especially when searching for files. This is not to say that Code42 is difficult. But I did not feel that using SOS was justified given the exorbitant pricing scheme used by SOS.
We've been using Nakivo and Code42 together. It works great as we are able to have the peace of mind of having data backed up offsite (Code42) and locally (Nakivo) I found this combo worked better than the costly and complicated setup of both Unitrends and Zerto. My biggest …
Have used Veritas, Symantec, Mozy, and Carbonite. Veritas and Symantec Backup Exec from my tape days, and Mozy and Carbonite when I wanted to move to a modern backup service. Code42's interface, cost, simplicity of use, versioning, security, and low-impact sold me. No contest …
I formerly used SOS Online Backup. It was a very similar system, originally offering unlimited backups at a price similar to Code42. After more than a year of backups, SOS informed me that they'd be reducing my storage from unlimited to 2tb, and, increasing my monthly rate by …
The main advantage that CrashPlan has on competing services is it's ability to back up network drives and keep your backup archives indefinitely. While Backblaze costs significantly less ($50/year/computer vs. $10/year/computer - or $120/year/computer), it does not have the …
OneDrive is not a good backup solution for endpoints. It is for storing a few files and sharing those files but not for business backup. Druva is a very good product that we never had any problems with and I'm not exactly sure why we switched from it. Code42 has some extra …
For our business model, Carbonite was not as economical. CrashPlan offered unlimited backup and unlimited deleted file retention for similar cost. Additionally, we had better results with support during evaluation with CrashPlan.
I have used several tape drives over the years with Symantec Backup Exec. Tapes have so many negatives associated with them, I would never recommend them as a backup system. I have also tried a couple of other disk based backup systems. Compared to all other backup solutions …
CrashPlan just makes backups simple. It's LDAP integration isn't locked in to only AD (i.e., Commvault) and the product is much more solid and reliable than the end user portion of Tivoli's CDP offering that was replaced in our environment by CrashPlan. I can't stress enough …
We compared CrashPlan with other choices and they were either too expensive or didn't have the backup capacity we required at the time. For lack of a better solution, we were very close to signing with Mozy, and this was years ago when CrashPlan was still a new player in the …
I like Crashplan's centralized nature and flexibility with support for all platforms. Their support has been the best of all other competitors' solutions.
I have not used the product, but it appears to be in the same league as the Crashplan product. I tend to think Crashplan is better only because of naivete of the other product and the fact that the entire experience with Crashplan has been fantastic from setup to updating to …
We use Windows Server to backup our in-house associates as they are connecting to the domain and it is easy to keep track of. Our remote associates do not connect to the domain as often so we had to find a solution to enable us to get a secure, accurate backup of their data. …
CrashPlan demonstrated a more advanced development than other products we were evaluating. A number of them didn't compress and dedupe, which affected performance on the machine as well as the network. The controls and reporting of crashplan were way more intuitive and …
We looked at file sync solutions that require an end user to move data independently, and two major things stuck out:
1. The human error factor was high. You cannot trust people to move files, even if they are important or they've agreed to move them on a certain schedule, and …
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.
This is a great Cloud backup solution. The cost is low, the bandwidth is managed well within the application, and the footprint for the client on a machine is very small and provides a notification menu icon with info about what is happening now or very recently. This does not backup to anything locally, so if that is a requirement, it will not meet that need. It used to be able to backup from one machine to another remote machine at one time, but now it is only cloud-based.
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.
Code42 is the most affordable backup system offering unlimited storage that I could find. I came from SOS Online Backup, which I ultimately decided to drop after my monthly rate for their unlimited plan increased by 20x.
With Code42's unlimited storage option, I don't have to worry about the fact that my backups are significant in space. As a photographer with thousands of images at stake, I need to run large backups often.
Code42 runs continuously and silently in the background of my desktop computer. It is truly "set and go", so I don't have to think about it when I'm away. It runs until the designated drive has been fully backed up to my cloud storage. It will then automatically email me once the backup is complete (or, it will email me if it encounters any errors).
Customer service is above par. Anytime I need help, a chat agent is available (chat is my communication preference), they are always friendly, and go above and beyond to resolve my needs.
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.
The CrashPlan program installed on your computer is Java-based vs. a native application. While this makes development for CrashPlan easier, there are a lot of drawbacks to Java programs including more resources usage, less stability, and overall more clunky interface.
While this was also in the Pros category - CrashPlan is an extremely powerful and flexible program, which adds a great deal of complexity. Setting up CrashPlan isn't always a simple procedure, and depending on the complexity of your backup set, can take a while to tinker around with the settings to get everything to work properly.
The CrashPlan desktop program consists of a Java program front end, as well as a backend service - there are times when the backend service will crash, and the front end Java program will refuse to load. Typically, restarting the service or restarting the computer will resolve the issue, but sometimes more in-depth troubleshooting is required.
Perhaps one of the biggest downsides to CrashPlan is its price - at $10/month/computer CrashPlan is more than double the price of some existing backup services such as Backblaze (priced at $50/year/computer). To add salt to the wound, about a year and a half ago, CrashPlan discontinued their consumer options - which were very reasonably priced at $60/year for a single computer or a family plan priced at $150/year for up to 10 computers. When these options were discontinued, the cost of backing up with CrashPlan was effectively doubled for the same feature set.
Along with the previous example, CrashPlan had the option to back up to a remote machine on a different network with a free Crashplan account. This option was eliminated when the consumer line of services were discontinued.
While the backup service provided by CrashPlan are still first in class, the above two controversial changes have broken some trust between CrashPlan and its clients.
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.
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.
Friendly and knowledgeable support team available to assist with this product. Code 42 (formerly CrashPlan) offers unlimited storage options for reasonable costs, so you really can't go wrong with this product. They have been a reliable resource for our company, and I would recommend to others looking for an easy setup with unlimited storage.
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.).
CrashPlan (in my specific case the CrashPlan Pro or CrashPlan for Small Business (there seems to be somewhat of an ongoing identity crisis with the products) is significantly lower overhead, in terms of cost and complexity, when compared to the other two products I have evaluated/used. The downsides are that it is also significantly less functional than the other products. CrashPlan is, as I have said a good value simple point solution.
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
Tremendous cost savings as the amount of data you backup doesn't impact cost. One flat rate!
Implementation time was minimal and requires little to no maintenance. Since installation, I've not had to correct or fix any issues. It just works.
We opted to supplement Code42 with another solution that allowed us to backup data to a local repository due to the amount for data that changes in our firm.