Compare managed file storage (EFS, Azure Files, Filestore, OCI FSS) across clouds.
Output will appear here...The comparison table is a static, hand-maintained dataset of feature rows grouped by category (overview, performance, availability, security, pricing) with free-text search across all fields; it's a reference snapshot, not a live specs feed, verify current protocol support (especially anything noted as preview) and pricing directly with the provider before a file storage architecture decision.
A comparison of managed network file storage across Amazon EFS/FSx, Azure Files/Azure NetApp Files, Google Cloud Filestore, and OCI File Storage Service, spanning protocol support, scalability ceilings, and pricing. Protocol support is the detail that most often blocks a lift-and-shift: EFS is NFSv4.1-only (FSx adds SMB/Lustre/ONTAP/OpenZFS as separate product variants), Azure Files supports both SMB 3.x and NFS 4.1 natively within one product, and GCP Filestore is NFSv3-focused (with NFSv4.1 still in preview at time of writing), so a workload requiring native SMB for Windows file shares maps cleanly to Azure Files or an AWS FSx variant, but not to plain EFS or GCP Filestore without a translation layer.
Protocol support is usually the first filter that should narrow a file storage provider choice, check SMB vs NFS vs both before comparing pricing or scalability figures, a perfectly-priced option that doesn't support your required protocol isn't a real option.
Filestore's Enterprise tier trades a lower capacity ceiling (10 TiB) for regional high availability, don't default to Enterprise assuming 'higher tier is always better', check whether the workload actually needs multi-zone HA or whether Zonal's larger 100 TiB ceiling better fits a large-but-single-zone-acceptable workload.
Automatic tiering (EFS Intelligent-Tiering, Azure Files Cool tier) can meaningfully cut cost for file storage with a real hot/cold access pattern, but GCP Filestore and OCI FSS require picking a tier upfront with no automatic migration, factor that operational difference into a cost model, not just the headline per-GB rate.
No, EFS is NFSv4.1 only, for SMB support on AWS you need FSx for Windows File Server, a separate product with its own pricing and Active Directory integration requirements, not a protocol option within EFS itself. This is a common point of confusion for teams assuming EFS is a universal AWS file storage answer.
It's in preview as of the current comparison snapshot, not the default or fully generally-available protocol, NFSv3 is Filestore's primary, stable protocol across its Basic, Zonal, and Enterprise tiers. Check current GCP documentation for NFSv4.1's GA status before architecting a workload around features that depend on it.
For unpredictable-growth workloads, yes, not needing to select and commit to a capacity tier upfront (the way Filestore's Basic/Zonal/Enterprise tiers or Azure Files' provisioned-capacity model require) removes a capacity-planning step and avoids either over-provisioning for headroom or hitting a ceiling that requires a disruptive migration to a larger tier.
Was this tool helpful?
Disclaimer: This tool runs entirely in your browser. No data is sent to our servers. Always verify outputs before using them in production. AWS, Azure, and GCP are trademarks of their respective owners.