Backblaze Comparison Alt

Features comparison.

This Storj and Backblaze features table compares the performance, durability, availability, scalability, ease of use, sustainability, and cost of both cloud object storage solutions. Discover what features Storj is rated higher, instances where Backblaze is rated higher, and features where both companies are on par. Overall, Storj’s distributed cloud vs. Backblaze’s central data storage puts Storj at an advantage for most use cases (See use case comparison further down the page).

Considering the best cloud storage provider for your business? Use this Storj vs. Backblaze features comparison table to make your decision.

Feature analysis summary

Overall, comparing features sets, Backblaze and Storj have more similarities than differences. In many cases, both Backlaze and Storj have comparable features.

Performance

Upload Speed

Good

Potential to experience slower speed the further away from the data center origin. Source reference.

Good

Consistency when accessing from different areas of the globe.

Download Speed

Good

Consistently good for download speed within the storage region.

Great

Parallelism and low latency optimizations make downloads very fast.

Performance outside of region

Poor

Potential to experience slower speed the further away from the data center origin.

Great

Consistency when accessing from different areas of the globe.

Durability

Outage

Good

Calculated 11X 9s annual durability, but should an outage occur at their data center, customers would lose access to their data.

Great

Durability is 9x 9s of durability achieved through Reed-Soloman erasure codes and file repair. Because only a portion of the sharded files are needed to reconstitute and they are distributed in different locations, Storj is highly resistant to access issues.

File repair

Great

Owns the data centers in a controlled environment. Cost to repair can be cheaper.

Good

Automated file repair and constant performance measurement of storage nodes.

Replication

Poor

Doubles the cost for each region added to store copies.

Great

Multi-region/global by default and doesn’t charge for data redundancy.

Availability

Multi-region

Poor

Can enable replication to other regions, but it’s pay per region/zone.

Great

Can utilize its built-in global region for one low cost.

No Minimum Storage Retention Period

Great

Has this feature.

Great

Has this feature.

Immutability

Great

Has this feature.

Great

Has this feature.

Data Privacy

Good

When you use Backblaze, data encryption is built in. Files scheduled for backup are encrypted on your machine.

Great

Easy end-to-end encryption built-in; even Storj can’t read your data if they wanted to. Storj also encrypts metadata for full data privacy.

Data Loss

Good

Has lost customer data.

Great

Never lost a file.

Scalability

Moving to new regions

Poor

Potential to experience slower speed the further away from the data center origin. Additional cost to add regional storage.

Great

No additional cost to access data in new regions as it is accessing from one global region.

Speed in moving to new regions

Poor

Can enable replication to other regions, but slower process with added expense. Backblaze is also currently limited to the US and parts of Europe.

Great

Data is already replicated across the globe.

Ease of Use

UI/UX

Good

Basic UI/UX.

Great

Intuitive UI/UX that features standard developer tools including CLI, S3-compatible gateway, and Golang developer library with supported bindings.

S3 compatibility

Great

Has more maturity and wider adoption.

Good

Is S3 compatible and is growing traction with continuing technology investment. Source reference.

Multipart Upload

Great

Supports multipart upload.

Great

Supports multipart upload.

Sustainability

Carbon emitted

Good

Owns and operates data centers with a typical efficiency of 30%.

Great

Over 70% of Storj drives are already deployed and powered. Storj has the equivalent capacity of several global data centers, without constructing a single new facility. It also enables storage providers to extend the life of existing hard drives without worrying about data loss.

Cost

Egress more than amount stored

Good

$10/TB month.

Great

$7/TB per month.

Egress less than amount stored

Great

Offers free egress for 3x the amount of data stored.

Good

Pay for all egress, but eliminates the egress from multi-region replication.

Multi-region

Good

Limited to the US and Europe, but this multiply costs to pay to replicate to others.

Great

Region agnostic, data is stored on tens of thousands of storage nodes across the globe.

Where Storj scores higher.

Storj excels over Backblaze by eliminating the need for multi-region storage for accessibility or backup replication. For example, if you are using Backblaze and want your data to be fast and accessible in the United States and Europe, you have to place a copy in both regions and pay for that storage. However, Storj has the advantage of being global by default, so it doesn’t cost extra.

Additionally, Backblaze only has data centers in the US and Europe, so this is not an option for customers outside those regions. Storj doesn’t have regional limitations, so this is a great option for companies scaling into new markets or regions.

Customers who benefit the most from using Storj over Backblaze.

Customers who need to manage lots of servers and customers who need to pull a large amount of data quickly will benefit with Storj’s distributed network. Customers who, in times of outages and disasters, need to have their data backups safe and readily available will benefit more by using Storj. Customers who need access to their data outside of the US and Europe, as well as those with more than 3x egress will need Storj globally distributed cloud storage. Additionally, customers who are working to reduce carbon emissions from cloud storage will want to select Storj.

Where Backblaze scores higher.

Backblaze excels at having a predictable cost model. It doesn’t matter what the size of the file is with Backblaze because it costs the same. Backblaze also scores higher on egress features because of their 3x free egress per month. However, if your use case requires significant egress, Backblaze won’t be a fit.

Customers who benefit the most from using Backblaze over Storj.

Customers with basic backup and recovery needs who only need one region of storage will find Backblaze cost effective.

Compare Storj to Backblaze by use case.

Let’s see how Storj and Backblaze features compare in common use cases. In terms of “Backup and Recovery” and “Video Surveillance” use cases, Backblaze is at a slight advantage. Use case categories such as “Video Streaming” place both solutions on equal rating. However, in terms of “Active Archive”, “File Transfer” and “Media Workflow” use cases, Storj receives a higher rating versus Backblaze.

Analysis summary

Overall, if you’re looking for an alternative to Amazon S3 to cut down on some costs, Backblaze and Storj are both S3 compatible and solid choices. Neither have a minimum storage retention period, and their S3 compatibility can be a drop in replacement.

Use Case

Active Archive

Good

Good for accessing files from one region at a low price without sacrificing accessibility.

Great

Has one of the lowest cost prices for data at rest and enables archived data to be used for machine learning and artificial intelligence modeling. Storj is also extremely secure and durable making it a great alternative to on-premise storage.

Backup and Recovery

Great

Has a few products that support their backup use case as well as verified backup and recovery providers.

Good

Has verified backup providers work well with Storj, like Veeam Ready certification, but doesn’t offer its own product.

File transfer

Good

Limited to the network bandwidth of their data center.

Great

Can utilize parallelism with its tens of thousands of storage nodes and has removed long-tail latency to achieve fast transfer speeds for large files.

Generative AI

Good

Can scale to handle large workloads.

Great

Can scale to handle large data workloads. Storj also has on-demand GPUs for data modeling.

Media Workflows

Good

Can scale to handle large workloads.

Great

Can scale to handle large data workloads. Storj also has on-demand GPUs for data modeling.

Scientific Research

Good

A good choice for production companies that only shoot and have editing resources in the US and Europe.

Great

Has worked with many media companies as the industry moves to be more global and remote. Storj is the only provider that can enable global workflows in production and post-production from one global region of storage.

Video Streaming

Good

Have CDN alliances that have free transfer between them and the CDNs.

Good

Likely will want an additional service to resize videos or use a CDN, but for some use cases is great. Storj excels at being a CDN origin for VoD.

Video Surveillance

Great

Great for active archive of video surveillance where egress is 3x or less the amount stored.

Good

Great for backup of video surveillance files, especially those that need to be accessible across multiple regions.

Comparing Storj and Backblaze.

Features comparison.

Feature analysis summary

Performance

Durability

Availability

Scalability

Ease of Use

Sustainability

Cost

Where Storj scores higher.

Customers who benefit the most from using Storj over Backblaze.

Where Backblaze scores higher.

Customers who benefit the most from using Backblaze over Storj.

Compare Storj to Backblaze by use case.

Analysis summary

Better for the planet.

Smart compliance.

Service providers choose Storj too.

Put Storj to the test.