14 Cloud Storage Providers and Their Cost per TB in 2026

Cloud storage pricing can look deceptively simple when providers advertise a price per gigabyte or terabyte, but the real monthly cost often depends on much more than the amount of data sitting in a bucket. Storage rates, data retrieval, internet egress, SSD prices, minimum-retention rules, replication, and migration costs can all change the final bill. For that reason, comparing cloud storage providers only by their advertised storage price can produce a misleading result.

This comparison looks at 14 major cloud and object-storage providers and normalizes their published pricing into a per-terabyte perspective. The focus is on general-purpose or standard storage rather than specialized enterprise contracts, and egress or exit-related charges are included wherever the provider publishes them. Prices and policies were checked against official pricing information available around July 2026. Because cloud providers frequently use different billing units, regions, storage classes, and allowances, the figures should be treated as practical reference points rather than universal quotes.

Amazon S3 remains one of the best-known benchmarks for cloud object storage. Standard S3 storage in common U.S. regions is approximately $0.023 per GB-month, which works out to about $23 per TB per month before request and transfer charges. The important issue is egress. Amazon generally charges $0.09 per GB for data transferred from S3 to the public internet in the first major pricing tier, although the first 100 GB of internet data transfer out per month is free when aggregated across eligible AWS services. Transfers between S3 and certain AWS services in the same region can also avoid normal internet-transfer charges. This means a 1 TB dataset that mostly sits untouched can cost around $23 monthly, while a workload that regularly downloads hundreds of gigabytes can become considerably more expensive. AWS's official pricing documentation confirms that S3 billing includes storage, requests, retrieval where applicable, and data-transfer charges.

Google Cloud Storage is similarly flexible but uses storage classes and location-based pricing. Standard regional storage commonly starts around $0.020 per GB-month, equivalent to roughly $20 per TB-month before other charges. Google does not simply treat every download as free. Network usage and, for Nearline, Coldline, and Archive storage, retrieval charges can apply when data is read or moved. Google currently lists retrieval charges of $0.01 per GiB for Nearline, $0.02 per GiB for Coldline, and $0.05 per GiB for Archive. Standard storage has no retrieval fee, but internet and inter-region network charges can still affect the final bill.

Microsoft Azure Blob Storage is another major contender, particularly for organizations already using Microsoft services. Azure pricing depends on the storage tier, redundancy configuration, region, and access pattern. Its Hot tier is designed for frequently accessed data, while Cool and Archive tiers reduce storage costs in exchange for additional access considerations. Azure's official pricing documentation emphasizes that total cost depends on stored capacity, operations, data transfer, and redundancy. Data retrieval and data writing for standard block blobs can be free in the listed pricing model, but outbound internet traffic is a separate consideration. Consequently, a simple per-TB comparison for Azure should never be interpreted as a complete bill without specifying region and redundancy.

Backblaze B2 has built its reputation around simpler object-storage economics. Its current published pay-as-you-go storage price is $6.95 per TB per month, following the pricing change introduced in May 2026. One of its most attractive features is free egress up to three times the average amount of data stored. After that allowance, additional egress is charged at $0.01 per GB. Backblaze also states that API calls are free under the current B2 model. For example, a customer storing 1 TB could normally download up to roughly 3 TB within the applicable free-egress allowance before the additional egress rate becomes relevant.

Wasabi Hot Cloud Storage is another provider where the storage price and egress policy make the comparison particularly interesting. Wasabi announced that its pay-as-you-go price would rise from $6.99 to $7.99 per TB per month beginning July 1, 2026. Its model does not charge conventional egress or API-request fees, although its free-egress policy remains subject to fair-use conditions. This makes Wasabi's effective price much easier to estimate for workloads that frequently download their stored data. The major qualification is that users should still examine retention requirements and the service terms for their specific workload instead of assuming that every possible data movement is cost-free.

Cloudflare R2 takes an especially aggressive approach to egress pricing. Standard R2 storage is $0.015 per GB-month, which is approximately $15 per TB-month before request charges. Cloudflare does not charge for internet egress from R2. Standard storage also has no data-retrieval fee, while its Infrequent Access tier costs $0.01 per GB-month and introduces a $0.01 per GB retrieval charge. This structure can make R2 highly attractive for applications that store large quantities of content and deliver that content frequently to users or other platforms. The trade-off is that request charges still matter for workloads producing very large numbers of operations.

DigitalOcean Spaces uses a subscription-style model rather than presenting storage as a completely open-ended per-GB service. The standard Spaces subscription costs $5 per month and includes 250 GiB of storage plus 1 TiB of outbound transfer. Additional storage is $0.02 per GiB-month, while additional outbound transfer is $0.01 per GiB. On a pure 1-TB storage basis, the additional-capacity rate translates to roughly $20.48 per TiB-month, although the $5 base subscription and included bandwidth change how an actual bill should be calculated. DigitalOcean also provides free transfers in certain same-region connections to Droplets. Its pricing documentation was verified in July 2026.

IBM Cloud Object Storage deserves attention because its 2026 One-Rate model takes a different approach from traditional metered object storage. IBM describes One-Rate as an all-inclusive monthly price covering storage, API operations, retrieval, and egress. For new workloads, IBM currently advertises rates as low as $10 per TB per month at the high-capacity end of the pricing structure, with the exact rate depending on the amount of storage and applicable plan. IBM announced a $10-per-TB rate for environments reaching 2 PB or more, with the entire footprint receiving that price under the stated One-Rate structure. This means IBM can be particularly interesting for very large organizations where predictable egress-inclusive billing matters more than the lowest small-account storage price.

OVHcloud is another provider that emphasizes straightforward object-storage pricing and free outbound traffic in many regions. Its Standard Object Storage rate is listed at approximately $0.00001111 per GiB-hour in its U.S. pricing information. Using the provider's 730-hour monthly convention, that is roughly $8.29 per TiB-month. Public inbound and outbound traffic are included under the standard offering in the listed regions. OVHcloud does note regional exceptions, particularly for some Asia-Pacific entities and certain temporary pricing arrangements. Its Infrequent Access option is cheaper for storage but adds retrieval charges and a 30-day minimum storage period. Therefore, OVHcloud can be extremely competitive for workloads where free outbound traffic is important.

Scaleway uses a more granular pricing structure and offers multiple storage products and classes. Its object-storage pricing includes free ingress, while egress includes a monthly free allowance of 75 GB followed by a published rate of €0.01 per GB. Retrieval pricing varies by storage class. This makes the headline storage price only one part of the calculation. A customer with a large dataset and very little outbound traffic may find Scaleway attractive, while an application that continuously serves large quantities of data should include the post-free-tier egress rate in its budget.

Tigris provides globally distributed S3-compatible object storage with a published standard storage rate of $0.02 per GB-month, or about $20 per TB-month using its binary billing convention. The important difference is its zero-egress model. Tigris states that it does not charge for data transfer out to the internet, regional transfer, or region-to-region transfer under its standard model. Its pricing also includes separate charges for Class A and Class B requests, while its archive and infrequent-access tiers introduce their own retrieval and minimum-retention rules. For users concerned about vendor lock-in and future migration, free egress can have substantial economic value even when the storage rate itself is not the lowest.

Vultr provides object storage through subscription-based plans and also offers archival storage. Its archival object-storage subscription is currently listed at $6 per month and includes 1,000 GB of archival storage, 1 TB of bandwidth, and 100 GB of unarchived storage. Additional archival storage is $0.006 per GB-month, while bandwidth beyond the included allowance is $10 per TB. Vultr's standard object-storage subscription has a higher base price and includes 1 TB of storage and 1 TB of bandwidth. The provider therefore sits in an interesting middle ground: the headline subscription price may look higher than pure storage-only providers, but included bandwidth changes the economics for users who actually move data.

Storj has traditionally focused on low-cost distributed object storage, and its current published material continues to show a storage price around $4 per TB per month and egress around $7 per TB for its relevant object-storage use cases. Its pricing therefore behaves differently from zero-egress providers. A customer storing 1 TB and transferring approximately 1 TB out during a month could think in terms of roughly $11 before other applicable costs. The advantage is that the storage component is low, while the disadvantage is that heavy outbound workloads can quickly increase the effective cost. Storj's current product and pricing pages should be consulted for the exact plan because the company has introduced changes to its storage offerings and pricing structure.

Oracle Cloud Infrastructure Object Storage is another major enterprise option. Oracle's published pricing material has historically listed standard Object Storage capacity around $0.0255 per GB-month, equivalent to approximately $25.50 per TB-month, although actual rates depend on the applicable Oracle Cloud region and pricing structure. Oracle also publishes separate outbound data-transfer pricing, meaning the storage figure should not be treated as an all-inclusive price. This is a classic example of why comparing only the advertised capacity charge can produce the wrong answer for data-intensive workloads.

When these providers are viewed together, the biggest lesson is that the cheapest storage price is not automatically the cheapest cloud-storage solution. A service charging $7 per TB but $10 or more for each additional TB downloaded can become more expensive than a $15-per-TB service with unlimited free egress. Likewise, a provider charging around $20 to $25 per TB may be reasonable for a dataset that rarely leaves the cloud but expensive for a video platform, software-download service, public dataset, or application serving large files worldwide.

The meaning of “exit fee” also deserves clarification. Most object-storage companies do not impose a conventional penalty simply because a customer closes an account. Instead, the financial cost of leaving is usually associated with data egress, retrieval, minimum-storage-duration commitments, early-deletion charges, or the network cost of copying the dataset to another provider. These charges effectively become the economic cost of migration. For example, an organization moving 100 TB from a provider charging $0.09 per GB for internet egress could face thousands of dollars in transfer charges, whereas a zero-egress provider can make the same migration substantially easier to budget.

Minimum-retention rules can be just as important as egress. Cold and archival storage tiers often advertise remarkably low prices because they are designed for data that remains untouched for long periods. Deleting or replacing objects too early can trigger additional charges. Google Cloud, Tigris, OVHcloud, Cloudflare R2 Infrequent Access, and other providers all illustrate how lower storage rates can come with retrieval or retention conditions. For backup systems that frequently expire old snapshots, these rules can matter more than a few dollars of difference in the monthly storage rate.

For a low-egress backup workload, Backblaze B2, Wasabi, OVHcloud, and similar storage-focused services can be compelling because their storage rates are substantially below the traditional hyperscaler baseline. Backblaze's free egress allowance and Wasabi's egress-free model are particularly relevant when data needs to be restored periodically. OVHcloud's included outbound traffic can also make its effective cost attractive depending on region.

For an application that serves files directly to users, egress becomes the deciding factor. Cloudflare R2 and Tigris are notable because they eliminate conventional internet-egress charges, while Wasabi also advertises no egress fees subject to its policies. DigitalOcean includes a significant outbound allowance, and Backblaze provides a free egress allowance tied to stored capacity. These models can be easier to forecast than the traditional storage-plus-egress structure used by hyperscalers.

For enterprise analytics and high-activity workloads, the calculation becomes more complicated. IBM's One-Rate model is designed to make storage, retrieval, operations, and egress more predictable, particularly at large capacity. AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud provide extensive integration with their respective compute and analytics ecosystems, which can reduce or eliminate some transfer costs when storage and compute remain in the same region or provider. In those cases, paying a higher storage rate can sometimes be economically sensible because moving data across providers is not required.

A useful way to compare these services is to calculate three separate numbers instead of one. The first is the monthly cost of keeping 1 TB stored. The second is the monthly cost of downloading a realistic amount of data, such as 100 GB, 500 GB, or 1 TB. The third is the one-time cost of moving the entire dataset to another provider. This third number is particularly important for businesses because a provider that looks cheap for five years can become expensive if a future migration requires tens or hundreds of terabytes of paid egress.

The 2026 market therefore divides broadly into several pricing philosophies. Traditional hyperscalers such as AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, and Oracle offer enormous infrastructure ecosystems but commonly separate storage from networking and operations. Specialist object-storage providers such as Backblaze, Wasabi, Cloudflare, Tigris, and OVHcloud compete aggressively on predictable storage and egress economics. Platforms such as DigitalOcean and Vultr simplify pricing through bundled subscriptions and bandwidth allowances. IBM is moving toward an all-inclusive enterprise model with One-Rate, while Storj takes a distributed-storage approach with low storage pricing and separate egress.

There is no single winner for every workload. Someone storing a terabyte of personal backups and downloading it twice a year has a completely different cost profile from a company serving a terabyte of images to millions of visitors. The first customer should prioritize storage price, durability, restoration costs, and retention policies. The second should focus heavily on egress and request charges. A company planning a future migration should also treat free or low-cost egress as a strategic feature rather than merely a pricing perk.

The most important conclusion from the July 2026 comparison is that “price per TB” is only the starting point. A genuinely useful cloud-storage comparison has to include the price of keeping the data, the price of retrieving it, the price of sending it elsewhere, and any minimum-retention or early-deletion obligations. Once those factors are included, providers such as Cloudflare R2, Backblaze B2, Wasabi, Tigris, OVHcloud, and IBM can look very different from the traditional hyperscaler options. Meanwhile, AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure remain highly competitive when storage is closely integrated with their broader cloud ecosystems.

For anyone choosing a provider in 2026, the safest approach is to model the actual workload rather than selecting a service solely because its storage number is lowest. Estimate the average terabytes stored, monthly uploads, monthly downloads, request volume, geographic regions, retention period, and expected migration frequency. Then calculate the complete monthly and annual cost. That approach reveals the true cost of cloud storage and makes it much easier to identify whether a low advertised storage price is genuinely economical or simply shifts the expense into egress, retrieval, operations, or exit-related charges.

Pricing changes frequently, and providers can also offer region-specific rates, enterprise discounts, committed-use agreements, and promotional pricing. The figures discussed here therefore provide a July 2026 market snapshot rather than a permanent price list. Before committing a production workload, the provider's official pricing calculator and regional pricing page should always be checked for the exact configuration.