Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) vs. CrashPlan

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
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
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 S3CrashPlan
Free Trial
NoYes
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional DetailsDiscount available for annual billing.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)CrashPlan
Considered Both Products
Amazon S3
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
Chose Amazon S3
Due to the best integration between other AWS services my company already used, S3 was the logic choice.
Chose Amazon S3
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.
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon 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 …
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
Linode and Google Cloud Storage
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
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
Chose Amazon S3
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.
Chose Amazon S3
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, …
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
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. …
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
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.
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
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 …
Chose Amazon S3
Most of our customers are on AWS so it's easy for us to integrate it with AWS S3 and we could deliver our projects on or before the expected time.
Chose Amazon S3
Amazon S3 is more cost-effective then what Microsoft Azure offers.
CrashPlan
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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.
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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.
Chose CrashPlan
All 3 were viable solutions, CrashPlan better fit our companies needs.
Chose CrashPlan
For personal, end user backup CrashPlan really is the best option in my opinion. Easy to use, easy to manage, relatively easy to recover.
Chose 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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
I like Crashplan's centralized nature and flexibility with support for all platforms. Their support has been the best of all other competitors' solutions.
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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. …
Chose CrashPlan
Atempo worked well but CrashPlan offered several more services that we found more useful e.g. reporting, legal hold, centralized admin console.
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
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 …
Chose CrashPlan
Centralized administration, AD integration, super ease to use, super easy to add users, 3-year contract discounts.
Features
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)CrashPlan
Data Center Backup
Comparison of Data Center Backup features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
9.0
Ratings
8% above category average
CrashPlan
8.3
Ratings
0% below category average
Universal recovery9.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Instant recovery7.90 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Recovery verification8.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Business application protection8.60 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Multiple backup destinations9.40 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Incremental backup identification9.30 Ratings7.00 Ratings
Backup to the cloud9.40 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Deduplication and file compression8.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Snapshots9.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Flexible deployment9.20 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Management dashboard8.10 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Platform support8.70 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Retention options10.00 Ratings9.00 Ratings
Encryption9.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Enterprise Backup
Comparison of Enterprise Backup features of Product A and Product B
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
8.8
Ratings
7% above category average
CrashPlan
8.0
Ratings
2% below category average
Continuous data protection9.40 Ratings10.00 Ratings
Replication9.20 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Operational reporting and analytics8.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Malware protection8.00 Ratings00 Ratings
Multi-location capabilities9.50 Ratings00 Ratings
Ransomware Recovery8.00 Ratings6.00 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)CrashPlan
Small Businesses
Cove Data Protection
Cove Data Protection
Score 9.9 out of 10
Cove Data Protection
Cove Data Protection
Score 9.9 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Druva Security Cloud
Druva Security Cloud
Score 9.7 out of 10
Druva Security Cloud
Druva Security Cloud
Score 9.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Druva Security Cloud
Druva Security Cloud
Score 9.7 out of 10
Druva Security Cloud
Druva Security Cloud
Score 9.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)CrashPlan
Likelihood to Recommend
9.2
(0 ratings)
8.1
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(0 ratings)
9.9
(0 ratings)
Usability
7.6
(0 ratings)
9.0
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.8
(0 ratings)
5.0
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
-
(0 ratings)
9.7
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)CrashPlan
Likelihood to Recommend
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.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Pros
  • 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.
Read full review
  • 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.
Read full review
Cons
  • 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.
Read full review
  • 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.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Due to princing, availability and scalability.
Read full review
No other product works as well.
Read full review
Usability
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.
Read full review
Overall, it is simple to use, lightweight, and effective.
Read full review
Support Rating
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.
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Implementation Rating
No answers on this topic
Very easy to follow the install guide.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
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.).
Read full review
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.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • 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
Read full review
  • 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.
Read full review
ScreenShots

CrashPlan Screenshots

Screenshot of Dashboard – Endpoints Backup, Shows: Active users, assets, completed restores, total data backed up, and users without active assets.Screenshot of Dashboard – OneDrive for Business
This screen tracks backup performance for OneDrive for Business.
Metrics: Active users, active assets, users with completed backups, assets not protected (0%), and total backup size (321.45 MB).
Reports include Data Protection Scorecard, Asset Assignment, and Capacity Savings.Screenshot of Dashboard – Microsoft Exchange
This screen presents Microsoft Exchange backup overview.Screenshot of Dashboard – SharePoint Online
This view shows backup activity for SharePoint Online.