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
Vultr
Score 6.8 out of 10
N/A
Vultr is an independent cloud computing platform on a mission to provide businesses and developers around the world with unrivaled ease of use, price-to-performance, and global reach.
$1
per month
Pricing
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Vultr
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
Block Storage
$1
per month
Cloud Compute
$2.50
per month
Object Storage
$5
per month
Kubernetes Engine
$10
per month
Load Balancers
$10
per month
Managed Databases
$15
per month
Optimized Cloud Compute
$28
per month
Cloud GPU
$90
per month
Bare Metal
$120
per month
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Amazon S3
Vultr
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
Pricing is based on specifications chosen in each product category. Bandwidth is also included up to a certain amount per month.
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service)
Vultr
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 …
Vultr comes in at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of the breadth of the services they provide compared to the larger vendors, but they are consistently demonstrating their commitment to growing their service offering and platform features. We selected Vultr because of …
Vultr has a greater offering of servers whilst staying reasonably priced compared to some of the larger infrastructure providers. They may not have all the services as some of the other providers but they don't need it when they can do what they do with the services they provide.
Vultr has better support and competitive pricing. The network is solid and globally deployed. IP reputation is clean, and security is tight. Ease of use and documentation is really good. User experience has been the best I ever experienced. Low stress, reliable …
The performance beats upcloud. The only thing I really liked about upcloud better was the backup offerings. They had more flexible backup plans, but I love the every other night plan on Vultr as well.
CloudCo was not listed. In comparison, the pricing of the competition is in a place where I wouldn't retain any margin for smaller customers, that's why I use Vultr for those. Vultr's self serve interface and UI is much better and more customizable for the general architect. If …
Vultr has been a more cost effective solution in some areas. Compared to AWS EC2, Vultr has been a lot more cost effective for our environment. Vultr has the right vCPU, RAM, and storage for our needs. In the object storage space, Vultr has not been the best fit for our …
Vultr offers the same services as all the major cloud providers however Vulr offers a clear pricing modeling with no hidden fees. This has been incisive in deciding which provider to go with. I have never encountered any downtime with their services Technically, Vultr has the …
From the perspective of the above, Vultr provides the best balance of cost vs. performance for us. Cloudways stacks a large fee for each VPS you spin up, and this quickly escalates. Linode comes closest (at least when I used it a few years ago) to Vultr, and 3 years ago this …
Vultr is much easier to get started with, less things to configure, a simpler interface. To deploy and manage a server is much easier. I am sure for a production SaaS app there are features in AWS and Azure that are needed, but for dev/test environment, I prefer Vultr.
Vultr is a dream to use after coming from AWS - the products are intuitively named, don't require gaining a certification to use, and have better documentation. Vultr's documentation is a little less comprehensive and organized than google cloud's; however, its pricing and …
Linode: Similar pricing, changed our business over to Vultr to save credit card fees by using Crypto. Digital Ocean: Fast and reliable, same pricing didn't stay because the payment methods (Similar case to Linode) Hetzner: Good pricing, good reputation, limited locations.
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.
Vultr is well suited for South African based organisations as they have a presence here. It makes dev servers for WordPress more feasible. Having to wait on roundtrips from EU or US slow things down.
Ease of setting up new servers, with clear information on what you are getting for what you pay, makes it so easy to spin up just what you need. With a large range of specifications it means you can find that sweet spot of cost vs. performance.
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 ability of increasing a specific configuration without the need of upgrading the whole plan, for example i might need to add more memory but i'm satisfied with my current processors and hard disk capacity (or vise versa)
Solving the problems of taking an image to the server if the server capacity (hard disk) is bigger than 1TB (which i'm currently facing a big problem because of that)
We’ve been extremely satisfied with the service for many years. After trying other providers, we’ve found nothing that matches the reliability and performance—so we’re not likely to switch anytime soon.
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.
easy to use and configure. great bang for the buck. I need an affordable solution to host in the cloud data from systems installed at our client's site with the ability to drill down and change the configuration remotely. Vultr enabled us to do that in an efficient and affordable way.
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.
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.).
Vultr has better support and competitive pricing. The network is solid and globally deployed. IP reputation is clean, and security is tight. Ease of use and documentation is really good. User experience has been the best I ever experienced. Low stress, reliable hosting I would recommend to anyone. It helped me easily scale and expand my business.
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