Product details — Object Storage
Backblaze B2
This page is a decision brief, not a review. It explains when Backblaze B2 tends to fit, where it usually struggles, and how costs behave as your needs change. This page covers Backblaze B2 in isolation; side-by-side comparisons live on separate pages.
Quick signals
What this product actually is
Cost-driven object storage for backups and media, often evaluated versus Wasabi and S3 when the decision is pricing mechanics (egress + requests), not storage price alone.
Pricing behavior (not a price list)
These points describe when users typically pay more, what actions trigger upgrades, and the mechanics of how costs escalate.
Actions that trigger upgrades
- Need enterprise governance/compliance integrations at scale
- Need hyperscaler-native adjacency for analytics and data pipelines
- Need broader region footprint for latency-sensitive delivery patterns
When costs usually spike
- Your workload’s request profile can matter as much as egress for total spend
- Restore frequency shifts economics compared to cold storage assumptions
- S3-compatibility is helpful, but integration edge cases can still surface
Plans and variants (structural only)
Grouped by type to show structure, not to rank or recommend specific SKUs.
Plans
- Pricing - Usage-based - Validate request and egress pricing on official pricing page
- Use cases - Backups/media - Best when access pattern is understood
- Compatibility - S3 option - Verify tooling assumptions for your integration
Costs & limitations
Common limits
- Not a hyperscaler ecosystem; governance and integrations can be narrower
- Request-heavy or restore-heavy access patterns can change economics materially
- Region footprint and latency/performance expectations must be validated
- Advanced features and integrations may not match hyperscaler parity
What breaks first
- Cost assumptions when request volume or restore frequency increases
- Performance expectations if regions and user geography don’t align
- Integration gaps if you rely on hyperscaler-native services and tooling
- Operational complexity if you attempt hyperscaler-style governance patterns
Fit assessment
Good fit if…
- Backups, archives, and datasets where cost is a primary constraint
- Media libraries and content storage where you can model egress and requests
- Teams that want S3-adjacent workflows without hyperscaler governance overhead
- Organizations comfortable validating constraints and operational fit
Poor fit if…
- You need deep enterprise governance integrated into a hyperscaler ecosystem
- Your workload is extremely request-heavy and you lack a clear cost model
- You need broad global footprint and hyperscaler-grade service adjacency
Trade-offs
Every design choice has a cost. Here are the explicit trade-offs:
- Cost-driven focus → less ecosystem depth than hyperscalers
- S3-adjacent workflows → easier portability but not parity with every feature
- Simple storage story → requires careful modeling of access patterns
Common alternatives people evaluate next
These are common “next shortlists” — same tier, step-down, step-sideways, or step-up — with a quick reason why.
-
Wasabi — Same tier / cost-driven storageCompared when buyers want large-footprint storage economics and are choosing between different cost models and policy constraints.
-
Amazon S3 — Step-up / hyperscaler object storageChosen when ecosystem depth and enterprise governance outweigh the appeal of simpler cost-driven storage economics.
-
Cloudflare R2 — Step-sideways / egress-sensitive alternativeEvaluated when egress dominates and buyers want different network economics, particularly for public content delivery patterns.
Sources & verification
Pricing and behavioral information comes from public documentation and structured research. When information is incomplete or volatile, we prefer to say so rather than guess.