AWS vs Azure vs GCP: Storage Features Compared

AWS, Azure, and GCP dominate cloud storage. Which is right for you? Here's a quick breakdown:

• AWS: Best for customisation and large-scale deployments. Known for Amazon S3 (object storage), EBS (block storage), and EFS (file storage). Offers strong lifecycle management and granular billing but has a steeper learning curve.
• Azure: Ideal for businesses using Microsoft tools or hybrid setups. Blob Storage (object), Managed Disks (block), and Azure Files (file) integrate seamlessly with Windows environments. Strong in the UK public sector with local data centres.
• GCP: Simplifies cloud storage with straightforward pricing and automatic discounts. Cloud Storage (object), Persistent Disk (block), and Filestore (file) are user-friendly, appealing to SMEs and AI/ML workloads.

Pricing Overview (UK):

• Object Storage (Standard/Hot): AWS and GCP start at £0.018/GB; Azure is higher at £0.037/GB.
• Block Storage (SSD): Azure begins at £0.014/GB; GCP and AWS vary based on performance tiers.
• File Storage: Azure Files Standard is the most affordable at £0.006/GB, while AWS and GCP are higher.

Performance Highlights:

• Object Storage: AWS S3 leads with high request rates; Azure Blob supports hybrid use; GCP offers auto-scaling.
• Block Storage: GCP Persistent Disk achieves up to 100,000 IOPS; AWS EBS and Azure Managed Disks trail behind.
• File Storage: Azure Files supports SMB and NFS, making it versatile; AWS EFS focuses on Linux; GCP Filestore is simpler.

Quick Comparison:

Choosing the right provider depends on your needs. AWS suits large-scale, complex setups. Azure is perfect for Microsoft-centric or hybrid environments. GCP offers simplicity and cost-efficiency. For help navigating costs or multi-cloud strategies, consult experts like Hokstad Consulting.

Object Storage: Amazon S3 vs Azure Blob Storage vs Google Cloud Storage

Object Storage Overview

Object storage offers a modern approach to data management, moving away from traditional file systems. Instead of organising data hierarchically, it stores it as individual objects within containers, often called buckets. Each object includes the data itself, metadata, and a unique identifier.

This method is ideal for scenarios like delivering web content, handling large-scale analytics, and creating reliable backups. Its flat namespace design allows for near-unlimited scalability and global distribution. This makes it a go-to solution for cloud-native applications that handle massive datasets - think petabytes of information spread across multiple regions.

Now, let’s break down how the leading platforms compare.

Feature Comparison

Amazon S3, Azure Blob Storage, and Google Cloud Storage all offer incredible scalability and durability. Each boasts 11 nines of durability (99.999999999%), meaning the loss of even one object out of 100 billion in a year is highly unlikely [1].

Performance, however, is where the differences start to emerge. AWS S3 supports at least 3,500 PUT/POST/delete operations and 5,500 GET requests per second per prefix, with no limit on prefixes - making it well-suited for unpredictable traffic [2]. Azure Blob Storage, on the other hand, has a soft cap of 20,000 requests per second per storage account, though this can be expanded with multiple accounts. It also offers specialised storage types like page blobs for virtual machine disks and block blobs for general use [2]. Google Cloud Storage begins with approximately 1,000 write/delete operations and 5,000 read operations per second but auto-scales within minutes, leveraging Google’s global network for consistent performance [2].

When it comes to data consistency and replication, AWS S3 introduced strong consistency for all operations in December 2020, aligning with Azure Blob Storage and Google Cloud Storage, which already offered immediate read-after-write consistency [1]. Replication strategies differ too: Google Cloud Storage and Azure Blob Storage include automatic geo-replication in their multi-regional setups, while AWS S3 requires manual configuration via Cross-Region Replication (CRR). While this gives AWS users more control, it also demands additional setup [1].

UK Pricing Comparison

For UK businesses, pricing is a key consideration. All three platforms follow a tiered, pay-as-you-go model, with options for reserved capacity to suit predictable needs.

Standard storage pricing is competitive. For example, Google Cloud Storage charges about £0.018 per GB monthly in London [5], while AWS S3 Standard costs roughly £0.018 per GB for the first 50TB monthly. Azure Blob Storage’s hot tier is slightly higher, averaging £0.037 per GB for the first 50TB monthly [3].

Archival storage is the most economical choice for long-term data retention. AWS S3 Glacier Deep Archive is priced at around £0.0008 per GB monthly [4]. Google Cloud Storage’s Archive tier comes in at approximately £0.002 per GB monthly [5], and Azure’s Archive storage is typically around £0.003 per GB monthly [3].

Access frequency also impacts costs. For example, Azure's Cool tier, suitable for data accessed monthly, costs about £0.020 per GB [3]. Google Cloud Storage’s Nearline tier offers a similar purpose at roughly £0.010 per GB monthly [5]. AWS S3’s Intelligent-Tiering dynamically moves data between tiers, with costs at around £0.018 per GB for frequent access and £0.010 per GB for infrequent access [4].

Data transfer fees further complicate pricing. All providers charge for data egress, with rates varying by destination and volume. Cross-region replication typically incurs additional costs as well.

For UK companies managing substantial storage needs, these pricing models can be complex. Seeking expert advice - like from Hokstad Consulting - can help optimise configurations and reduce costs effectively.

Block Storage: Amazon EBS vs Azure Managed Disks vs Google Persistent Disk

Block Storage Explained

After covering object storage, it's time to dive into block storage - an essential component for high-performance applications. Block storage provides raw storage volumes that can be directly attached to compute instances, making it a go-to option for virtual machines and databases. Unlike object storage, which is more like a flat structure, block storage functions like a traditional hard drive, offering the kind of performance that demanding applications need.

The standout feature of block storage is its ability to handle high-performance input/output operations. Metrics like IOPS (Input/Output Operations Per Second) and throughput are key here, as they determine how quickly data can be read and written. This makes block storage a perfect fit for workloads like database servers and enterprise applications that require consistent, low-latency access.

For example, database systems such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Oracle rely heavily on the predictable performance that block storage offers. It’s also a great choice for high-performance computing workloads, which often need to process thousands of read and write operations simultaneously without performance dips.

Feature and Performance Comparison

When it comes to performance, the differences between platforms are striking. Google Cloud Persistent Disk is a leader, offering up to 100,000 IOPS for read operations and 80,000 IOPS for write operations. AWS EBS follows with up to 64,000 IOPS per volume, while Azure Managed Disks typically max out around 5,000 IOPS. Throughput also varies: Azure Managed Disks deliver approximately 750 MBps, AWS EBS offers about 500 MBps, and Google Cloud Persistent Disk provides 480 MBps for reads and 240 MBps for writes.

Volume sizing flexibility is another point of difference. Google Cloud supports volumes ranging from 1GB to 64TB, Azure allows for 1GB to 32TB, and AWS offers 500GB to 16TB. Snapshot capabilities also vary across platforms. AWS EBS provides seamless volume snapshots and supports Multi-Attach, which allows multiple instances to access the same volume. Azure includes a variety of SSD options and Shared Disks for clustering needs, while Google Cloud focuses on efficient snapshot functionality, though its volumes are tied to specific zones.

All three platforms prioritise security with encryption at rest and in transit. AWS integrates with its Key Management Service (KMS), Azure uses Azure Key Vault, and Google Cloud employs Cloud KMS for managing encryption keys.

Here’s a quick comparison of the key performance metrics:

Cost and Billing Structure

Block storage pricing in the UK varies widely across providers. For standard SSD block storage, Azure starts at approximately £0.014 per GB per month, Google Cloud charges around £0.015 per GB per month, and AWS pricing can go up to roughly £0.115 per GB per month [7].

Each platform offers multiple pricing tiers to match different performance needs. AWS EBS provides options like General Purpose SSD and Provisioned IOPS SSD, allowing you to customise performance. Azure Managed Disks offer tiers such as Standard HDD, Standard SSD, Premium SSD, and Ultra Disk. Google Cloud Persistent Disk includes Standard (HDD), Balanced (SSD), and SSD tiers, with the Balanced option being a cost-effective choice for most workloads, while the SSD tier is tailored for maximum performance.

Additional fees can also add up. All three providers charge for snapshot storage, often at reduced rates compared to active storage. Data transfers between availability zones and provisioned IOPS charges (on AWS and Azure) can also increase costs, regardless of usage. A recent study revealed that 52% of EMEA organisations exceeded their public cloud storage budgets last year, with nearly half of their bills attributed to extra fees rather than storage capacity [6].

For predictable workloads, commitment discounts can lead to significant savings. AWS offers Reserved Instances for EBS-optimised instances; Azure provides Reserved Capacity for managed disks; and Google Cloud offers Committed Use Discounts, which can reduce costs by 20–50% for commitments of one to three years.

Billing structures differ across platforms. AWS bills hourly for provisioned capacity, Azure charges monthly for allocated space, and Google Cloud uses per-minute billing with sustained use discounts applied automatically. Understanding these nuances is crucial for accurately predicting and managing costs.

For UK businesses juggling complex storage needs, expert guidance can make a big difference. Hokstad Consulting offers cloud cost engineering services to optimise block storage setups and reduce unnecessary expenses through strategic planning and automation.

File Storage: Amazon EFS vs Azure Files vs Google Filestore

File Storage Explained

File storage is a critical component of cloud infrastructure, particularly in legacy and hybrid environments. It functions much like a traditional network drive, providing shared file access across multiple systems. Unlike block storage, which offers raw disk space, file storage maintains a user-friendly folder structure that many organisations are already familiar with.

One of its key advantages is the ability to support simultaneous access by multiple clients. This makes it ideal for applications like content management systems, collaborative development environments, or media workflows. For organisations transitioning from on-premises file servers, file storage ensures compatibility with legacy workflows while offering scalable performance.

For businesses in the UK, file storage becomes even more relevant when adhering to regulatory requirements that demand specific file access controls. It also supports remote teams by enabling seamless access to shared resources. Below, we compare the features of leading providers to see how they meet these needs.

Feature Comparison

The three major providers - Amazon EFS, Azure Files, and Google Filestore - differ significantly in protocol support, which impacts compatibility with existing systems.

• Amazon EFS supports only NFSv4.0 and NFSv4.1 protocols. This makes it a strong choice for Linux-based environments, integrating seamlessly with AWS services like Amazon EC2, ECS, EKS, AWS Lambda, and Fargate [8][9].
• Azure Files offers broader flexibility by supporting both SMB and NFS protocols. This compatibility allows it to work with Windows, Linux, and macOS clients. It also includes enterprise-grade features like Active Directory domain join and integrated serverless backup [12][13].
• Google Filestore supports NFSv3 and NFSv4.1, focusing on POSIX-compliant applications. It integrates with Google services, such as Compute Engine, Kubernetes Engine, and VMware Engine [10][11].

When choosing between NFSv3 and NFSv4.1 on Google Cloud, there are trade-offs. NFSv3 provides faster setup for basic POSIX access but lacks features like encryption and proper client failure handling. NFSv4.1 includes enhanced security with LDAP and Kerberos authentication, data encryption in transit, and support for file access control lists (ACLs), making it suitable for stricter security requirements [11].

Azure Files stands out with its SMB protocol, offering advanced enterprise features. These include discretionary access control lists (DACLs), serverless backups via Azure Backup, and network isolation through private endpoints. It also supports SMB Multichannel for higher throughput on SSD file shares and offers versioning through VSS-integrated snapshots [12].

For hybrid cloud environments, Azure Files is a leader, thanks to Azure File Sync. This feature allows Windows Servers to act as local caches for cloud shares, delivering on-premises performance with cloud scalability [14][16]. Organisations like Kleinfelder have benefited from this approach. Andy Kimura, their Senior Manager and Director of IT Infrastructure, shared:

Using Azure Files with Azure File Sync has absolutely changed the way we manage servers in our local offices. We no longer worry about a server failing in the office. It's been life changing. [14]

Similarly, PUMA leveraged Azure Files for global collaboration. Sebastian Lilienthal, Senior IT Cloud Architect at PUMA, noted:

Now we have one Azure file storage account that we sync across the globe to keep everyone collaborating easily. Everyone works together easily. [14]

Google Filestore, on the other hand, focuses on simplifying cloud migrations by eliminating the need for extensive rewrites or architectural changes [15].

UK Pricing and Suitability

The pricing of file storage services varies based on performance tiers and regional factors. Here's a quick comparison for UK businesses:

For small and medium-sized businesses, the decision often hinges on specific needs. Azure Files Standard offers the lowest entry point at £0.006 per GB per month, though additional costs for IOPS and throughput can add up [17]. Amazon EFS provides a clear tiered pricing model, while Google Filestore delivers strong performance with distinct SSD and HDD options.

User ratings also highlight key differences. Amazon EFS scores 4.5 out of 5, slightly ahead of Azure Files at 4.3 out of 5. Amazon EFS excels in scaling capabilities (9.8 vs 8.6) and support quality (9.1 vs 8.5) [18].

Cost optimisation strategies like data lifecycle policies, using appropriate storage classes, and regular usage reviews can help reduce expenses [17]. For predictable workloads, reserved capacity and commitment discounts can lead to significant savings across all providers.

Ultimately, the right choice depends on your infrastructure and priorities. Azure Files is ideal for mixed Windows and Linux environments, Amazon EFS suits AWS-native setups, and Google Filestore works well for businesses seeking straightforward cloud migrations. UK enterprises managing multi-cloud setups can turn to Hokstad Consulting for expert advice on reducing file storage costs and implementing hybrid cloud solutions efficiently.

Advanced Storage Features and Management Tools

Lifecycle Management and Data Replication

Cloud storage solutions have evolved to include advanced tools for managing data efficiently. One standout feature is lifecycle management policies, which help businesses cut costs by automatically moving data to cheaper storage tiers or deleting it based on pre-set rules. This ensures data is stored cost-effectively, aligning with how frequently it’s accessed [20].

AWS S3 is a leader in this area, offering lifecycle policies that seamlessly transition data to lower-cost options like Glacier. These policies analyse access patterns, allowing data to flow through different storage classes over time. For UK businesses navigating regulatory requirements, this means older, less-accessed documents can be archived automatically while remaining accessible when needed.

Azure Blob Storage provides granular control over lifecycle policies. Businesses can apply rules to entire storage accounts, specific containers, or even targeted subsets of data using name prefixes and blob index tags as filters [20]. This level of control makes it easier to optimise costs for specific departments or projects.

Google Cloud Storage takes a simpler approach with its Standard, Nearline, Coldline, and Archive classes. While it’s less detailed than AWS or Azure, the simplicity makes it easier to implement, especially for teams looking for straightforward management.

When it comes to disaster recovery, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery (DRS) stands out. It replicates data for quick failover, ensuring faster recovery times and lower costs [26][27].

To make lifecycle management work effectively, proper configuration is essential. Policies can take up to 24 hours to start processing, with changes requiring another 24 hours to take effect [19]. For UK businesses, narrowing the scope of these policies using filters like prefixes and blob index tags can streamline operations. Setting up Event Grid Notifications to track policy completion can also help ensure smooth management [19].

Next, let’s explore how management tools and automation can further fine-tune these cost-saving strategies.

Management Tools and Automation

The tools available for monitoring and automating costs differ significantly across providers, each offering unique benefits depending on organisational needs.

Azure Cost Management provides a robust suite of tools for analysing, monitoring, and optimising cloud expenses. It includes detailed reporting, budget alerts, and automation options that integrate naturally with Azure’s ecosystem [23]. The Azure Budgets API allows businesses to automate budget creation and cost-based processes, while the Cost Details API retrieves granular cost data for billing accounts under Enterprise or Microsoft Customer Agreements [21].

Azure’s system actively monitors costs, evaluating them against budget thresholds daily. If a threshold is crossed, notifications are triggered within an hour, helping organisations respond quickly and avoid overspending [21]. Additionally, Azure Advisor offers tailored recommendations to optimise costs, improve performance, and enhance security [22][24].

AWS focuses on integration within its broader ecosystem. Tools like Systems Manager and Step Functions simplify tasks like automated failover and testing processes [27]. For database scalability and resilience, Amazon RDS Cross-Region Read Replicas ensure business continuity by supporting efficient scaling [28].

Google Cloud, while offering fewer native cost management tools, prioritises simplicity in its approach, making it easier for teams to adopt without extensive training.

These tools can lead to considerable savings. For instance, Azure Reserved Instances can cut costs by up to 70%, while Azure Spot Instances offer savings of up to 90% [25]. Such features are particularly beneficial for UK businesses aiming to manage cloud storage costs without compromising operational efficiency.

DevOps Integration

Automation and DevOps integration take storage management to the next level, enabling smoother workflows and cost optimisation as part of deployment processes.

Each cloud provider offers tools for Infrastructure as Code (IaC), which streamline infrastructure setup. AWS shines in this area with its mature CloudFormation platform and wide third-party tool compatibility. Azure provides robust automation options through ARM templates and Bicep, while Google Cloud’s Deployment Manager is functional but less advanced.

Automation goes beyond provisioning. For example, Azure’s integration with GitHub Actions and Azure DevOps supports CI/CD pipelines that automatically adjust storage configurations based on deployment needs. Similarly, AWS offers CodePipeline and CodeDeploy, with the added flexibility of Lambda functions for custom automation logic.

For teams managing multi-cloud setups, consistent tooling is critical. This is where specialised expertise becomes essential, as handling lifecycle policies, cost optimisation, and disaster recovery across AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud requires a deep understanding of each platform.

Monitoring and alerting are equally vital for DevOps workflows. Azure’s native tools, such as Application Insights and Log Analytics, provide detailed insights into storage performance and costs. AWS CloudWatch offers comparable features with tighter integration into its ecosystem.

Automating storage management reduces manual work while improving consistency. Features like scheduled data exports, automated tiering based on usage, and proactive cost alerts free up teams to focus on development rather than infrastructure.

For UK businesses undergoing DevOps transformation alongside cloud adoption, choosing the right provider can significantly impact long-term efficiency. Expert guidance can help organisations implement automated strategies that not only lower costs but also enhance deployment reliability. Hokstad Consulting offers tailored solutions for DevOps transformation and cloud cost management, helping businesses achieve seamless storage management across public, private, and hybrid cloud setups.

Final Comparison and Summary

Key Points for UK Businesses

Drawing from the detailed comparisons above, here’s a summary of the main differences that matter most to UK businesses.

AWS holds the largest slice of the global market with a 31% share [29]. It’s known for its extensive storage options, with Amazon S3 setting the benchmark for object storage and Amazon EBS offering highly configurable block storage. AWS also leads in lifecycle management, with a wide variety of storage classes to suit different needs.

Azure, capturing 25% of the market, is particularly strong in the UK public sector. This is largely due to Microsoft’s established presence and its local data centres [29][30]. Azure’s hybrid cloud capabilities and seamless integration with Microsoft products make it ideal for organisations with intricate IT setups or existing Microsoft infrastructure.

Google Cloud Platform (GCP), with an 11% market share, appeals to UK small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Its focus on simplicity, combined with automatic discounts, makes it a practical choice for businesses seeking straightforward, cloud-native solutions.

The table below provides a concise, side-by-side comparison of these providers.

Complete Comparison Table

Choosing the right provider depends on your business needs. AWS shines with its robust feature set for large-scale, multi-location deployments. Azure is a natural fit for organisations already invested in Microsoft tools or those requiring hybrid cloud solutions. Google Cloud, on the other hand, is a go-to for SMEs looking for affordability and simplicity, especially for AI and machine learning tasks.

For businesses navigating complex multi-cloud strategies or aiming to cut costs across providers, expert advice can make all the difference. Hokstad Consulting offers tailored solutions to help UK organisations optimise costs and improve deployment reliability, whether working with public, private, or hybrid clouds.

Cloud Provider Comparisons: AWS vs Azure vs GCP - Storage

FAQs