In my first post about Amazon S3 and Wuala I just made a very simple technical comparison about both services. Due to the great response I provide you with a deeper review.
Comparing both service for their cost is tricky, because their pricing concepts differs in many aspects. Especially the fact that you can trade your local storage for free cloud storage flaws every comparison.
- first 50 TB / used storage per month 0,150 USD per GB
- PUT, COPY, POST or LIST 0,01 USD per 1.000 requests
- GET and all other requests 0,01 USD per 10.000 requests
- up to 10 TB / month outgoing traffic 0,150 USD per GB
- Third party client software for desktop integration cost something, e.g. JungleDisk 3$ per month
- First 1 GB are free (send me a comment and I’ll reply with an activation code for 2 GB)
- You can invite friends and get additional storage
- You can share local storage to the wuala cloud and get additional storage
- You can buy storage (see list)
- Traffic is included
Comparison just on storage:
|storage* (GB)||Amazon S3 (EUR/Y)||Wuala (EUR/Y)|
* The unusual storage sizes include the fact, that you get 2 GB free for Wuala. So I just added this 2 GB to every category.
Comparison with some traffic:
|storage (GB)||Amazon S3 (EUR/Y)||Wuala (EUR/Y)|
To include some traffic I made the following assumption: uploading 10% of storage, downloading 10% of storage, PUT/COPY/POST/LIST 1.000 requests for 10GB and GET 10.000 requests for 10 GB with linear scaling. In case you would assume different traffic, yes, you are right, the figures are not perfect but good enough for a comparison.
|Time (min:sec)||Total (MB)|
|Time (min:sec)||Total (MB)|
The figures are simple to enough to see that Amazon S3 stores files in half the time compared to Wuala. Interestingly not because it has a higher performance (average transfer rate about 20% higher) but the total amount of data send over the net. Wuala uses P2P technology which stores encrypted file segments redundant on several clients (plus a central backup server) which results in more traffic. You can surely produce advanced performance tests, but they won’t get you something very different.
Details of the small performance test you can read at my first post.
A first approach to compare the most important features of both services. By definition it’s very subjective and incomplete but I give my best.
|provider||US company||Swiss company|
|Service level agreement (promise not to lose your content)||no||no|
|data privacy||no – depends on your third-party client software||yes|
|Provides huge storage > 500 TB||yes||unlikely|
|Special import/export service for bit data transfer via hard disk||yes||no|
|service API||http/REST (GET, PUT,..), http/SOAP||proprietary, http/REST (GET)|
|file integrity by checksum validation||yes||yes|
|versioning||yes – adds to storage||yes – it’s free|
|time travel||no||yes – client feature|
|works behind firewall which doesn’t block the provider domain||yes – just http request||mostly no – UDP packages|
|desktop integration as local share||no – depends on your third-party client software||yes|
|Webclient||no – depends on your third-party client software||yes – but you need java installed|
Initially I thought that the comparison is definitely in favor of Amazon S3 but I’m surprised:
- Wuala is definitely the better cloud storage service for the personal usage as long as you don’t sit behind a firewall which blocks wuala
- Amazon S3 offers simple APIs and clean pricing to work as enterprise level application storage (pay as you go) even for huge storage amounts