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
IBM Aspera on Cloud
Score 7.1 out of 10
N/A
IBM Aspera on Cloud is an on-demand SaaS offering for global content transfer and exchange. It enables organizations to move large files and data sets securely and reliably across on-premises and multi-cloud environments at high speed. With Aspera on Cloud, organizations can store and access files and folders across multiple cloud-based and on-premises storage systems. Sharing among users is as simple as browsing or drag-and-drop — no matter where the files are stored — making…
$1.01
per month per GB transferred
Pricing
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
IBM Aspera on Cloud
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Pay as You Go
USD 1.01
per month per GB transferred
Essentials Edition
Starting at $250.20
per year
Standard Plus Edition
Starting at $7488
per year
Premium Edition
Contact Sales
per year
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon S3
IBM Aspera on Cloud
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
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
IBM Aspera on Cloud
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 …
Teams can be really slow and the downloads sometimes come out corrupted or the program will just quit or it doesn't seem to like all files to download. While IBM Aspera is more universal and versatile with the files it downloads. Teams might look flashy but its not the best …
IBM Aspera always surpassed the competition in terms of features and admin/user friendliness. The cost per Gibabyte is the best, with a very simple cost structure. One element : Total amount of data transferred. Coming from a company that has been one of the first 5 customers …
We've also used cloud storage services like Dropbox, Google Drive, and Amazon S3. While they're great for file sharing, they weren't optimized for high-speed transfer of large files.
These cloud storage products deliver sufficient space to store data and access and have an array of ways to transfer this data and keep it secure. IBM Aspera on Cloud focuses on the transfer and makes it a lot faster mainly due to its patented tech and altered UDP protocol. …
Aspera comes with IBM cloud so there isn’t really a choice. Since it’s built-in, it integrates well and there was no need to buy another solution. Therefore, I did not consider other options. It worked fine, gave access files, push data securely, and did it faster than standard …
Aspera was used by most of our members (but not all), IBM consultancy was able to help for setting up the infrastructure in a couple of hours. This was quick and effective. We were able also to use quickly the ASPERA API with external tools to make exchanges between Aspera sites.
They are all good services as well for smaller files, but for large files using a service like Aspera is imperative since otherwise, you have to start an upload/download all over if it stalls or fails.
My company used Dropbox before we implemented Aspera. When it comes to file security we felt more comfortable in Aspera. The file transfer speed especially uploading and downloading files using Dropbox was very low. We found it not that reliable when it came to file transfer. …
File size is not limited with Aspera on Cloud. Also, the speed is really, really fast compared to others. Finally, the security features make it more reliable than other products.
Other services were very barebones and did not offer storage options. The option of not using on-premise storage for a transfer solution is a game-changer. We can rely on the distributed node advantage for data protection and speed, while still maintaining the integrity of …
Aspera Managed File Transfer racks up evenly against its' competitors. I use different programs to share and upload media to different affiliates, however this program seems to be one of the most popular in the industry. This could be due to the ease of use, and the fact that …
Initially the organization depended on services like Dropbox and Google Drive to share and store files for the graphic department as well as use their own private servers for storage. However, the speed for uploading and downloading wasn't reliable. Plus it lacked the central …
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.
Barring the cost-prohibitive nature of some of the IBM Aspera solutions, IBM Aspera on Cloud is the appropriate solution for many file transfer workloads. Even at smaller volumes and lighter-weight files, Aspera's Hot Folder automation is a well-built and excellent solution for most file transfer needs.
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.
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.
My experience with Aspera applications and with other vendors. My score will go to 8 as soon as AoC's Files App has the Search Through Sub-folders feature. We want to remove Aspera Shares, which has an older inefficient user interface.
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.
The support from IBM is fast and reliable. Very knowledgeable engineers provide you with the support on Aspera. We had a very good experience when opened tickets and we were able to get our issues resolved quickly. Most solutions are provided within a day so you can expect a quick turnaround time. Overall, the support has been very good.
The service provided by the authorized vendor was excellent. It was a good collaboration between the vendor IT team and internal IT team. They provided us with a timeline and we verified and approved that timeline. Daily stand ups and weekly meetups were conducted to update the internal team on progress. They were able to deliver all deliverables on time also, they conducted both alpha testing and beta version testing in time. Overall, they were able to complete the implementation in the given timeline.
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.).
Teams can be really slow and the downloads sometimes come out corrupted or the program will just quit or it doesn't seem to like all files to download. While IBM Aspera is more universal and versatile with the files it downloads. Teams might look flashy but its not the best with actually transferring important data quickly like Aspera.
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