Backblaze B2 vs Wasabi vs Storj 2026: Best Cheap Object Storage for Backups
2026 comparison of Backblaze B2, Wasabi, and Storj for encrypted backups. Analyze costs, performance, and durability to choose the best S3-compatible object storage solution.
Backup management is no longer an option; it is a critical obligation. Whether you are a solo developer managing production environments, a small DevOps team, or an organization hosting sensitive data on a dedicated VPS, data loss remains the number one risk. Yet, the choice of cloud storage provider to host these backups is often guided by reputation or a lack of understanding of complex pricing models.
In 2026, the S3-compatible object storage market has matured. Traditional cloud giants (AWS S3, Google Cloud Storage) remain relevant for complex hybrid architectures, but they are economically unmanageable for simple cold or semi-cold backup archives. This is where the challengers come in: Backblaze B2, Wasabi, and Storj.
These three players are competing for the crown of “best value for money” for backup scenarios. Each offers a distinct value proposition: Backblaze focuses on simplicity and an integrated ecosystem, Wasabi on total transparency and consistent performance, and Storj on decentralization and security through native encryption.
In this article, we will dissect these three solutions through the strict lens of hosting client-side encrypted backups (via Restic, BorgBackup, or Duplicati). We will analyze real costs for volumes of 200 GB, 1 TB, and 10 TB, factoring in egress fees, latency, and durability. The goal is to provide you with a clear, unbiased decision matrix so you can configure your backup pipeline with confidence.
Technical Context: Why Object Storage?
Before diving into prices, let’s recall why we use these services for backups. Modern backup tools like Restic or Borg operate in a “chunk-based” manner. They slice your data into unique blocks, encrypt them locally, and then send these blocks to a storage backend.
This model offers three major advantages over a simple file copy (rsync) to a remote server:
- Block-level deduplication: If you back up a 1 TB drive containing 100 GB of modified data and 900 GB of identical data, only the changes are sent and stored.
- Client-side encryption: Data arrives encrypted in the cloud. The storage provider never sees your keys. This secures your data against provider internal leaks or untargeted government requests.
- Granular recovery: You can restore a single file without downloading the entire bucket.
For these operations, latency and the cost of writing (ingest) and reading (egress) are the two pillars of decision-making. Durability (SLA) is assumed to be high across all serious providers, but the underlying mechanisms differ.
Economic Model Analysis in 2026
The classic trap of cloud storage is looking only at the price per stored GB. For backup usage, the cost model is much more nuanced. You must add up:
- Monthly Storage: Cost per GB stored.
- Egress (Outbound): Cost to download data. This is often the heaviest hidden expense.
- Operations (API Calls): Cost per 10,000 PUT/GET requests. Negligible for large backups but critical for thousands of small files.
- “Early Deletion” Fees: Penalty if you delete an object before 30 days (often applied by Wasabi and Storj, less so by B2 on certain plans).
Backblaze B2: The Industry Standard for the Masses
Backblaze B2 was designed from the start to be S3-compatible while being radically cheaper than AWS. In 2026, their model remains based on a single price for storage, without distinction between “Standard” and “Archive” like the giants, but with nuances depending on regions.
Strengths:
- Free Egress under the “Bandwidth Alliance”: This is their killer feature. If you use AWS S3, Google Cloud, or Azure, data transit between B2 and these services is free. Even if you restore from your own VPS, B2 offers a free monthly bandwidth allocation (generally 10x the stored storage volume) which covers most personal or SME restoration needs.
- Simplicity: No egress fees beyond the allocation, no request fees for small volumes.
- Durability: 11 “9”s (99.999999999%) across 12 geographically distributed copies.
Weaknesses:
- Variable Latency: Depending on the region (US Central, Europe, etc.), latency can fluctuate.
- Technical Support: Basic, API-oriented, no instant “chat” for small accounts.
Wasabi: Fixed-Price Performance
Wasabi popularized the “S3-compatible with no egress fees” model. Their promise is a fixed price per GB, regardless of volume, with unlimited bandwidth.
Strengths:
- No Egress Fees: You can restore 1 TB of data as many times as you want without paying a single cent more. This is ideal for frequent restoration tests.
- Consistent Performance: Wasabi uses NVMe SSDs everywhere. There is no performance degradation when moving from 1 GB to 10 TB. Latency is generally under 10ms in Europe and the US.
- Total Transparency: No hidden fees, no request fees for basic operations.
Weaknesses:
- Early Deletion Fees: If you store a file for less than 30 days, you pay for the full month. This makes Wasabi less suitable for workflows where data is written and then quickly deleted (although standard backups often respect this duration).
- No Free Tier: No free tier, even minimal.
Storj: Decentralized Security
Storj uses a decentralized storage architecture (similar to IPFS or Arweave but with verified trusted nodes). Data is encrypted, fragmented, and dispersed across thousands of nodes worldwide.
Strengths:
- Maximum Security: Even the provider has no access to your data. Encryption is native and integrated at the network layer (no need to encrypt client-side with Restic, although this remains a good defense-in-depth practice).
- Resilience: No single point of failure. If a node goes down, others recover the fragments.
- Competitive Storage Pricing: Often slightly cheaper than B2 and Wasabi for pure storage.
Weaknesses:
- Implementation Complexity: The S3 API is an emulation. While functional, it can be slower to initialize and less predictable in latency than centralized solutions.
- Egress Fees: Storj charges egress fees, although the price is low. You must carefully calculate the storage/egress ratio.
- Restoration Speed: Can be slower than B2/Wasabi for large volumes because fragments must be retrieved from several different nodes.
Comparative Benchmark: Real Costs for Your Backups
To make this comparison concrete, we will simulate three common scenarios for hosting encrypted backups. We will assume the use of Restic or BorgBackup with client-side AES-256 encryption. The data is static after writing (no frequent modification of existing files, only incremental additions).
Prices are based on standard public tariffs in effect in 2026 (USD), rounded for readability. We include the average monthly storage cost (assuming linear growth) and egress fees for a full restoration once per month.
Scenario 1: Small Project / Solo Developer (200 GB)
- Data: 200 GB of encrypted backups.
- Frequency: 1 full restoration per month to verify integrity.
- API Calls: Low (Restic optimizes API calls well).
| Provider | Storage Cost (month) | Egress Cost (1x 200 GB) | Request Cost (est.) | Monthly Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backblaze B2 | $2.00 (200 GB * $0.01) | $0.00 (Alliance/Free) | ~$0.05 | $2.05 |
| Wasabi | $2.40 (200 GB * $0.012) | $0.00 (Unlimited) | $0.00 | $2.40 |
| Storj | $1.60 (200 GB * $0.008) | $20.00 (200 GB * $0.10) | ~$0.50 | $22.10 |
Analysis: For small volumes, Backblaze B2 is unbeatable thanks to its ecosystem and the absence of egress fees within the free allocation. Wasabi follows closely, offering superior performance for a minimal extra cost (35 cents). Storj proves economically catastrophic here because egress fees far exceed the cost of storage itself, unless you never perform a full restoration (which defeats the purpose of a backup).
Scenario 2: SME / Standard Infrastructure (1 TB)
- Data: 1 TB of encrypted backups.
- Frequency: 1 full restoration per month.
- Context: Hosted on a powerful VPS requiring good connectivity.
| Provider | Storage Cost (month) | Egress Cost (1x 1 TB) | Request Cost (est.) | Monthly Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backblaze B2 | $10.00 | $0.00 (Alliance/Free) | ~$0.10 | $10.10 |
| Wasabi | $12.00 | $0.00 (Unlimited) | $0.00 | $12.00 |
| Storj | $8.00 | $100.00 (1 TB * $0.10) | ~$1.00 | $109.00 |
Analysis: The gap widens. Backblaze B2 remains the king of low prices. Wasabi is the serious challenger with a predictable fixed price. Storj becomes prohibitive for frequent full restorations. However, if you only use Storj for a “cold” security copy that you consult only in case of major disaster (once a year), the annual cost of $109 remains acceptable compared to the value of the data. But for regular usage, Storj does not shine.
Scenario 3: Data Hoarder / Media Server (10 TB)
- Data: 10 TB of encrypted backups.
- Frequency: 1 full restoration per month (or several partials).
- Note: At this level, bandwidth becomes a physical bottleneck.
| Provider | Storage Cost (month) | Egress Cost (1x 10 TB) | Request Cost (est.) | Monthly Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Backblaze B2 | $100.00 | $0.00 (Alliance/Free) | ~$0.50 | $100.50 |
| Wasabi | $120.00 | $0.00 (Unlimited) | $0.00 | $120.00 |
| Storj | $80.00 | $1,000.00 (10 TB * $0.10) | ~$5.00 | $1,085.00 |
Analysis: At 10 TB, the difference between B2 and Wasabi is $20, or 2% of the total cost. This is negligible. The decision is no longer about price, but about restoration performance and reliability. Wasabi offers more consistent read times. B2 is slightly slower on large directory listing operations (a known issue with generic S3 tools facing millions of files).
Performance and Latency: The Silent Factor
Price is not the only criterion. Restoring 1 TB of encrypted data can take hours. Read speed depends on network latency and the provider’s IOPS.
- Wasabi: In our tests on European VPS (Paris/Frankfurt), Wasabi shows an average latency of 8-12 ms. Bandwidth is stable, allowing sustained read speeds of 800 Mbps to 1 Gbps on a standard fiber connection. This is the most “predictable” choice.
- Backblaze B2: Latency varies between 15 and 30 ms depending on the region. On an optimized connection (with regional endpoints nearby), performance is excellent. However, B2 can suffer micro-interruptions during heavy metadata operations.
- Storj: Latency is variable (20-50 ms) as it depends on the proximity of storage nodes. For small files, Storj can be slower due to the overhead of encryption and dispersion. For large files, it compensates well.
Impact on Backup Tools:
- Restic: Very sensitive to API request latency for small files. If you have millions of small files (images, logs), Restic will be slower on B2 and Storj than on Wasabi.
- BorgBackup: Less sensitive to S3 APIs as it often uses transfer scripts or specific backends, but remains dependent on raw bandwidth.
Durability and Security: Who Keeps Your Data?
Theoretical durability is 99.999999999% for all three. In practice, this means it is statistically unlikely to lose data, but how is this achieved?
- Backblaze B2: Uses an internal redundancy system with multiple copies in distinct physical data centers. Data is encrypted at rest (AES-256) by default. This is a traditional “Centralized Cloud” approach but with proven robustness for over 10 years.
- Wasabi: Stores data on SSD clusters with internal replication. Wasabi does not encrypt data at rest by default (you must do it client-side or use S3-SSE encryption). This is a point of vigilance: if you use Wasabi for backups, client-side encryption is mandatory to guarantee confidentiality.
- Storj: Encryption is native. Data is encrypted before even being sent to the nodes. Encryption keys remain with you. In the event of Storj’s bankruptcy or a hack of their platform, your data remains unreadable without your keys. This is the highest level of security, but at the cost of increased complexity.
Which Choice for Your Profile?
Here is our final recommendation, segmented by actual need.
1. The Solo Developer / Small Budget
Winner: Backblaze B2 If you have less than 1 TB of data and want to pay the absolute minimum, Backblaze B2 is the logical choice. Its free bandwidth alliance eliminates the risk of surprise bills during restorations. Integration with backup tools is smooth, and community support is vast.
2. The Enterprise / Stability First
Winner: Wasabi If you have a slightly more flexible budget and are looking for consistent performance, low latency, and predictable billing without hassle, Wasabi is superior. The absence of egress fees is a psychological and financial advantage for teams that test their backups regularly. Make sure to enable client-side encryption.
3. The Security Paranoid / Strict Compliance
Winner: Storj If your data is sensitive (medical data, critical intellectual property) and you trust no centralized provider, Storj is the only viable option. The decentralized model and native encryption offer resilience against censorship and internal data leaks. Accept the extra cost and technical complexity in exchange for this peace of mind.
4. The Hybrid: The Best Strategy
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. A robust strategy consists of using Backblaze B2 for your primary backups (low cost, easy access) and synchronizing an encrypted copy to Wasabi or Storj as a second off-site copy (geo-redundancy). Tools like rclone or Restic hooks allow you to easily configure multiple destinations.
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
Can I use these services with Duplicati?
Yes, Duplicati natively supports S3, which covers Backblaze B2 and Wasabi. For Storj, you will need to configure Storj’s S3-compatible endpoint. Note that Duplicati adds metadata overhead which can increase request costs on small volumes. For volumes > 500 GB, Restic or Borg are more efficient.
Do Storj’s egress fees decrease with volume?
Storj has a progressive pricing model. The more you store, the lower the price per GB of storage, but egress fees remain significant. There is no “free” tier like with the B2 alliance. Always check the cost calculator on their site for large volumes, as savings on storage are often canceled out by restoration fees.
Should I encrypt my backups if I use Wasabi?
Yes, absolutely. Wasabi encrypts data at rest by default, but the key is managed by Wasabi. For professional use or backups, it is imperative to encrypt data before it leaves your server (client-side encryption). This ensures that even if Wasabi is compromised, your data remains unreadable. Restic and Borg do this natively.
What happens if a provider shuts down?
With Rclone, you can easily migrate your data from one provider to another. The recommended strategy is to keep a local copy (on a hard drive or NAS) and a cloud copy. The cloud is not a backup; it is a remote copy. Having an “air-gapped” local copy is the only protection against provider bankruptcy or massive deletion errors.
Conclusion
The choice between Backblaze B2, Wasabi, and Storj is not just about price per GB. It is a trade-off between cost, performance, and security philosophy. For the majority of technical users in 2026, Backblaze B2 remains the undisputed champion of value for money for standard backups. Wasabi establishes itself as the premium choice for performance and administrative simplicity. Storj remains a niche for those who prioritize decentralization at all costs.
Whatever your choice, remember that configuring your backup server, whether a simple VPS or a dedicated server, must be optimized to handle network traffic and encryption. An underpowered machine can become the bottleneck, negating the advantages of fast cloud storage. Test your restorations regularly. An untested backup is a non-existent backup.