Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs Oracle Cloud Object Storage comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Storage (9th), File and Object Storage (10th)
Oracle Cloud Object Storage
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Public Cloud Storage Services (10th)
 

Mindshare comparison

While both are Cloud Services solutions, they serve different purposes. Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is designed for Cloud Storage and holds a mindshare of 7.2%, down 9.9% compared to last year.
Oracle Cloud Object Storage, on the other hand, focuses on Public Cloud Storage Services, holds 4.0% mindshare, down 4.1% since last year.
Cloud Storage
Public Cloud Storage Services
 

Featured Reviews

MuhammadAzhar Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
Auto-scaling capabilities enhance file management while reducing downtime
The most valuable feature of Amazon EFS is its auto-scaling capability. It's really easy to configure EFS by just creating it and running a command to directly configure it with my servers. It supports unlimited use, and charges are applied based on the file usage at the end of the month. The solution offers reduced downtime and increased durability through its auto-scaling features.
PriyankShrivastava - PeerSpot reviewer
A workhorse that enables high availability but support has room for improvement
There is always room for improvement. When a product is marketed, many claims are made, but in reality, it does not always perform as expected. The usability and real-time capabilities could be enhanced. The product can be difficult to use compared to how it is marketed. Technical support also lacks a timely response.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"There are huge money savings, as we can save more than half of our costs."
"The first valuable thing is it is scalable."
"We can run code and deploy it whenever we want."
"Amazon EFS offers the flexibility of scaling as needed without requiring pre-provisioned storage."
"Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface."
"Amazon EFS is extremely stable, as it is managed by AWS."
"We haven't seen any downtime or challenges when using the services."
"The platform is highly scalable."
"Oracle Cloud Object Storage is valuable for storing unstructured data, such as text documents and word documents."
"We use it mostly in the cloud. It is stable, requires high availability, and works with large datasets seamlessly."
"One key feature is that you can make buckets private, requiring pre-authentication and using a specific URL for access. Additionally, the buckets are encrypted by default. The flexibility of public or private buckets and how you grant access are vital security features."
"The most valuable features of the tool are scalability and security."
"The solution's most valuable features are its speed, unlimited space, and simplicity of use."
"It is stable, requires high availability, and works with large datasets seamlessly."
"The technical support for the solution was very nice."
 

Cons

"I don't have notes on improvements."
"The deployment is definitely not an easy process."
"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"Amazon EFS is more costly compared to other storage options available from AWS."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"Elastic File Systems can be expensive due to the nature of data transfer costs, using services like SSTP, and potentially being costly in a rate-shift context."
"The initial setup requires prior experience and technical skills."
"There are challenges related to AWS, such as ensuring proper security measures with IMS code and encryption."
"The solution should provide more customization and the possibility of doing more manual tasks."
"Cost-wise, it is not an affordable tool if you allocate space, and try to use it some other day."
"The usability and real-time capabilities could be enhanced."
"I could not find a load balancer in OCI similar to the support provided by Microsoft Azure and AWS."
"Oracle Cloud Object Storage needs to have an additional bucket for security."
"The product can be difficult to use compared to how it is marketed. Technical support also lacks a timely response."
"Sometimes, there are glitches with applying policies. Even when the policy is correct, it might not work consistently. We need to troubleshoot to see if it's a user error or if the policy itself needs adjustment. It usually works after refreshing, but that inconsistency is a minor complexity."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) offers a pay-as-you-go model, so whenever you use its services, you need to pay."
"The product charges are based on the amount of data stored."
"It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage."
"The solution's price is mid-ranged."
"The main challenge with EFS is its cost, which is slightly higher compared to EBS or S3. For one GB or ten GB of data, S3 is much cheaper. EFS could cost around $30 to $50 per month for similar usage."
"The product's price depends on the services and the size and capacity at which it is used in a business environment."
"I would rate the pricing 7 out of 10."
"Oracle Cloud Object Storage might not be that expensive compared to on-premises solutions."
"During the billing cycle, if I use the tool only for a day, I still need to pay you for a month."
"Disaster recovery (DR) can be expensive."
"We have a yearly subscription for the product."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Storage solutions are best for your needs.
856,807 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
14%
Educational Organization
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Healthcare Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Which file storage system is better - Amazon EFS (elastic file storage) or Azure File Storage?
Amazon EFS is easy to set up: you can use the AWS management console, API, or command-line. Amazon EFS can grow to petabytes and deliver consistent low latencies and high levels of throughput. This...
What do you like most about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
Amazon EFS is more costly compared to other storage options available from AWS.
What do you like most about Oracle Cloud Object Storage?
The solution's most valuable features are its speed, unlimited space, and simplicity of use.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Oracle Cloud Object Storage?
It is an expensive product. We do not use a monthly plan; instead, we opt for a quarterly or semi-annual licensing model, which we negotiate.
What needs improvement with Oracle Cloud Object Storage?
There is always room for improvement. When a product is marketed, many claims are made, but in reality, it does not always perform as expected. The usability and real-time capabilities could be enh...
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Arcesium, Atlassian, Seeking Alpha, Zend
Brinks
Find out what your peers are saying about Google, NetApp, Dropbox and others in Cloud Storage. Updated: June 2025.
856,807 professionals have used our research since 2012.