IBM Cloud Object Storage vs Google Cloud Storage
As companies continue to gather more and more data, the need for scalable, cost-effective storage solutions becomes even more important. Cloud-based object storage solutions like IBM Cloud Object Storage and Google Cloud Storage have emerged as viable options for businesses looking to store large amounts of unstructured data.
But which one is right for you? Let’s take a look at a feature-by-feature comparison of the two services.
Pricing
Pricing is always a critical consideration when it comes to choosing a cloud storage provider. Both IBM and Google use a similar pricing model based on the number of stored objects, data transfer, and data retrieval.
IBM Cloud Object Storage has a pricing structure for both standard and Vault services. With their standard service, they charge per GB per month for storage - this price decreases as you store more data. For their Vault service, the pricing is based on GB stored, IAM users, and API calls. One drawback to IBM Cloud Object Storage is they charge for early deletion (storage for less than 180 days) of objects which can be a consideration if you need to delete data quickly.
Google Cloud Storage has a lower pricing structure that is easy to read and calculated by the minute. They also have different classes of storage based on access frequency where you can choose nearline and coldline options to optimize for price savings.
Winner: Google Cloud Storage with consistently lower pricing options.
Data Security
Data security is paramount when storing big data. It must be protected from unauthorized access and loss.
Both IBM Cloud Object Storage and Google Cloud Storage include features like encryption of stored data, HTTPS and SSL support, and server-side encryption keys. However, Google Cloud Storage also offers Cloud Audit Logging which provides a log of all data access and charges for it on-demand, whereas IBM Cloud Object Storage charges hourly for enabling their feature called ‘Activity Tracker’.
Winner: Tie. Both providers offer several security measures but differ in the pricing of those features.
API and Integration
API and Integration are important for businesses looking to streamline operations. Support for third-party tools and software is critical for easy data movement and storage.
IBM Cloud Object Storage provides a dedicated ATRest API service with platform support for AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure. It is also compatible with Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) and OpenStack.
Google Cloud Storage contains similar technology highlights but supports additional languages including Go, Ruby, and PHP. It also integrates with a host of Google’s developer services like Bigtable, Dataflow, and Dataproc.
Winner: Google Cloud Storage for its additional language integrations and seamless integration with other Google developer services.
performance and scalability
Performance and scalability are important features to consider. When working with Big Data, it must be readily accessible and available to handle spikes in demand.
Google’s Cloud Storage has lower average latency compared with IBM cloud Object Storage, with a maximum of 99,995% HTTP availability. Google Cloud Storage can handle more than 5 Petabytes of data, whereas IBM Cloud Object Storage can handle up to 1 Petabyte.
Winner: Google Cloud Storage for better performance in terms of lower average latency and maximum HTTP availability.
Conclusion
IBM Cloud Object Storage and Google Cloud Storage are two leading cloud-based storage solutions that offer enterprise-class security, scalability, and flexibility. With this comparison, we see Google as winning three of the five categories. IBM has its strengths in terms of broader API services and a more tunable pricing structure.
Overall, choosing the right data storage provider depends on your specific needs. We hope this comparison helped inform you of the key differences so you can make the best decision for your business!