Managed file storage storage is once again at the center of many infrastructure decisions. For years, much of the cloud comparisons have focused on virtual machines, object storage, or managed databases, but file storage services remain essential for enterprise applications, Kubernetes clusters, hybrid environments, shared content, and workloads that require concurrent access to the same data.
Cloud Mercato has just published a public study comparing OVHcloud File Storage with Amazon Elastic File System, Azure Files, and Google Filestore. The analysis arrives at a timely moment: OVHcloud launched its File Storage solution in Q2 2026 and aims to position it against well-established services in AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. The comparison reviews features, scalability, protocols, data protection, pricing models, and cost estimates for various usage scenarios.
A comparison focused on actual cost, not just price per GB
The most useful aspect of the study is that it doesn’t stop at the base price per capacity. In cloud file storage, the final cost depends on several elements that aren’t always presented consistently across providers: provisioned capacity, read/write operations, IOPS, bandwidth, data transfer, replication, snapshots, and reservations.
This lack of uniformity complicates comparisons. One provider might seem cheap per GB but become more costly under heavy read workloads. Another could include performance within the provisioned capacity but require a higher minimum size. There can also be significant differences between zonal and regional options, which is relevant when a company needs higher availability or fault tolerance.
According to Cloud Mercato’s table, OVHcloud File Storage is priced at $0.154 per GB per month in the SBG region for its Standard 1AZ class. AWS EFS is listed at $0.176 per GB for Elastic One-Zone and $0.33 for Elastic Multi-AZ in eu-west-3. Azure Files Premium LRS costs $0.1431, and Premium ZRS is at $0.1789 in West Europe. Google Filestore is at $0.28 for Zonal and $0.50 for Regional in europe-west9.
Read costs shouldn’t be judged solely on who offers the lowest price per GB. Cloud Mercato reminds us that AWS EFS can add charges for read and write operations in certain models, while Azure Files introduces separate costs for IOPS and provisioned bandwidth, although the first 3,000 IOPS and 100 MB/s are included in the scenarios covered by the study. Google Filestore, on its part, operates on a provisioned model with higher prices for the regional option.
OVHcloud becomes attractive in price but with clear technical limits
OVHcloud File Storage is presented as a managed NFS solution for Public Cloud, integrated with OpenStack Manila, Manila CSI, vRack, and NFSv3. The service offers volumes from 150 GiB up to 10 TiB, with up to 16,000 IOPS and 128 MiB/s throughput. OVHcloud’s target use cases include Kubernetes with RWX volumes, cloud instances, shared asset catalogs, shared directories, and applications that require accessible storage from multiple nodes.
In terms of price, the study gives it a strong position in several scenarios. For a 2 TB workload with 500 GB of reads, 200 GB of writes, and 15,000 provisioned IOPS, Cloud Mercato calculates a total cost of $308 for OVHcloud. In the same table, AWS EFS Elastic One-Zone comes to $379, AWS EFS Multi-AZ to $687, Azure Premium LRS to $750, Azure Premium ZRS to $934, Google Filestore Zonal to $560, and Google Filestore Regional to $1,000.
The difference widens in the intensive scenario of 5 TB, 128 TB of reads, 1 TB of writes, 30,000 IOPS, and 1 GB/s provisioned. Cloud Mercato estimates $770 for OVHcloud, versus $4,883 for AWS EFS Elastic One-Zone, $5,653 for AWS EFS Multi-AZ, $1,809 for Azure Premium LRS, $2,259 for Azure Premium ZRS, $1,400 for Google Filestore Zonal, and $2,500 for Google Filestore Regional.
In the third visible scenario, with 10 TB of storage, 5 TB of reads, 1 TB of writes, and 30,000 IOPS, OVHcloud again remains near the bottom of the table at $1,540. AWS EFS Elastic One-Zone appears at $1,980, AWS EFS Multi-AZ at $3,520, Azure Premium LRS at $2,475, Azure Premium ZRS at $3,090, Google Filestore Zonal at $2,800, and Google Filestore Regional at $5,000.
These figures favor OVHcloud’s price but do not make its offering the best choice for every case. The analysis highlights significant limits. OVHcloud File Storage has a maximum volume size of 10 TB, compared to 256 TB with Azure Files, 100 TB with Google Filestore, and elastic scalability in AWS EFS. It’s also a zonal-only option with 99.9% availability, while AWS, Azure, and Google offer regional or multi-zone variants with higher availability levels.
Use case determines the best choice
For cloud-native workloads requiring shared NFS, Kubernetes integration, and controlled cost, OVHcloud File Storage could be a good fit—especially if volume sizes do not exceed 10 TB and the architecture can tolerate a zonal option. Its pricing model is straightforward: pay for provisioned capacity, with performance scaling linearly with the contracted size.
AWS EFS maintains a clear advantage in elasticity. Its ability to grow and shrink automatically, without provisioning storage upfront, can be very useful in environments with variable or unpredictable consumption. However, its pricing model may become more expensive under workloads with many operations or heavy traffic if the usage pattern is not well estimated.
Azure Files excels in compatibility with both NFS and SMB, which is highly relevant for organizations with Windows-based environments, hybrid integrations, or traditional file sharing needs. It also offers local and zonal redundancy and a maximum size larger than OVHcloud. Its model requires careful evaluation of IOPS, throughput, and reservations to avoid surprises.
Google Filestore remains a solid choice within Google Cloud, especially for workloads already running in that environment. Its zonal and regional options provide different levels of availability and price, with high-performance configurations available. According to Cloud Mercato’s comparison, costs can be higher in the analyzed scenarios.
The most practical conclusion from the study is that file storage should not be selected based solely on a price table. It’s important to evaluate protocols, maximum size, availability, sustained performance, network model, operational costs, and ease of integration. Also, projecting actual consumption matters: a workload of 5 TB with 128 TB of monthly reads does not behave the same as an infrequently accessed file repository.
The arrival of OVHcloud File Storage adds competitive pressure in a segment dominated by major hyperscalers. Its proposal seems aimed at clients seeking a European alternative, predictable pricing, and integration with OpenStack and Kubernetes. But, as with any cloud service, cost savings are only real if the technical features align with the workload.
For infrastructure teams and FinOps, the message is clear: comparing only price per GB is no longer enough. The total cost of ownership for cloud file storage hinges on details. And those details, multiplied by dozens of terabytes or intensive read/write workloads, can entirely change the monthly bill.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does the Cloud Mercato study compare?
It compares OVHcloud File Storage, Amazon EFS, Azure Files, and Google Filestore across features, protocols, scalability, data protection, pricing, and cost scenarios.
What protocols do these services support?
According to the comparison, all support NFS. Azure Files also supports SMB, while OVHcloud File Storage relies on NFSv3.
Is OVHcloud File Storage always the cheapest option?
In the visible scenarios of the study, it appears with lower costs, but this doesn’t mean it’s the best choice for all cases. Size limits, availability, performance, and integration needs must be considered.
Why can cloud file storage costs vary so much?
Because they depend not only on stored TBs. Read/write operations, IOPS, bandwidth, redundancy, data transfer, and reservations also influence the overall cost.