Azure Blob Storage vs Amazon S3
A detailed comparison to help you choose between Azure Blob Storage and Amazon S3.
Quick Verdict
3.9/5
Azure Blob Storage
0 reviews
4.1/5
Amazon S3
0 reviews
Amazon S3 is rated higher (4.1 vs 3.9). Microsoft Azure's object storage service for storing massive amounts of unstructured data like documents, images, and backups. Built for enterprises needing reliable, cost-effective cloud storage with compliance options. AWS S3 stores and retrieves unlimited amounts of data via a simple web interface. Built for developers, enterprises, and anyone needing reliable, durable cloud storage with pay-as-you-go pricing.
Azure Blob Storage Scalable cloud object storage for unstructured data at enterprise scale |  Amazon S3 Scalable object storage for any data size or type | |
|---|---|---|
| Overview | ||
| Rating | 3.9 (0 reviews) | 4.1 (0 reviews)✓ |
| Pricing model | usage-based | pay-as-you-go (per GB-month + per 1,000 requests + retrieval/transfer) |
| Starting price | From $0.0184/mo✓ | From $0.023/mo |
| Best for | Microsoft-centric enterprises and Azure-native analytics/backup workloads needing compliant, tiered object storage with global residency | Teams building on AWS who need durable, API-stable object storage for backups, data lakes, static content and archives — and who value tooling compatibility over the lowest per-GB rate |
| Features | ||
| IPv6 | ✓ | |
| DDoS protection | ||
| Automated backups | ||
| Snapshots | ||
| Managed option | ||
| Bare metal | ||
| GPU available | ||
| S3-compatible | ||
| Hourly billing | ||
| Free tier | ||
| Data-center locations | ||
| Regions | — | 39 AWS regions / 123-124 AZs |
| Tags | ||
| Tags | free tiers3 compatibleapi accesseu datacenterus datacenterapac datacenterterraform provider | free tiers3 compatibleapi accessus datacentereu datacenterapac datacenterterraform provider |
| Visit Azure Blob Storage → | Visit Amazon S3 → | |
Azure Blob Storage
Pros
- + Four cost-optimized access tiers with fully published per-GB and per-operation prices
- + Mature redundancy ladder (LRS through RA-GZRS) with 11 nines claimed durability on LRS
- + Deep Azure integration: Entra ID auth, Private Link, lifecycle management, immutable storage
- + Reserved capacity discounts up to roughly a third on committed storage
- + Global footprint with EU, US, and APAC data residency plus sovereign clouds
Cons
- - No native S3 API — S3-designed tooling needs a third-party proxy
- - Egress, retrieval, and early-deletion fees often dwarf the capacity cost
- - Portal, RBAC, and account-kind surface area is a real learning curve
- - Cool/Cold/Archive tiers carry lower availability targets (99%) and minimum retention periods
- - SLA is 99.9% with capped service credits, not an availability guarantee
Amazon S3
Pros
- + Designed for 11 nines durability with cross-AZ replication by default and strong read-after-write consistency
- + The S3 API is the industry standard — code written in 2006 still works, and third-party compatibility is everywhere
- + 23x cost ladder from Standard down to Glacier Deep Archive at $0.00099/GB-month, with lifecycle automation
- + Deepest storage feature set available: versioning, Object Lock, replication, inventory, event notifications, access management
Cons
- - Egress at $0.09/GB and per-request pricing produce surprise bills for chatty or restore-heavy workloads
- - IA and Glacier classes add retrieval fees and latency — the restore path must be priced separately
- - Policy configuration (bucket policies, IAM, Block Public Access, KMS keys) is complex and historically error-prone
- - SLA (99.9%/99.0%) is far below the durability figure — availability and durability are different promises
Stay in the loop
Get weekly updates on the best new hosting and infrastructure providers, deals, and comparisons.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.