AWS vs Google Cloud
Both appear in 4 sections: compute, object storage, egress, footprint. AWS is cheaper on 3 of 5 comparable measures.
AWS and Google Cloud are close on storage and differ meaningfully on egress. S3 Standard stores at $0.023/GB-month against Cloud Storage Standard at $0.020, so GCP is slightly cheaper to keep bytes. Egress reverses that: AWS charges $0.09/GB after a 100 GB monthly allowance, while GCP charges $0.12/GB after 200 GB free to most destinations. So GCP gives you twice the free allowance and then charges a third more per gigabyte beyond it. For a workload serving 10 TB a month the difference is roughly $900 at AWS against $1,200 at GCP. Operations are effectively identical, both at $0.005 per thousand writes and $0.0004 per thousand reads. Neither is remotely competitive with the zero-egress providers in Pikkly's table. The choice between them almost never comes down to these figures. AWS has the larger service catalogue, the deeper tooling ecosystem and the biggest pool of people who already know it. GCP's arguments are BigQuery, which has no real equivalent, its Kubernetes heritage, and networking that is genuinely well engineered. If you are moving large volumes of data out to the internet, both will hurt and the answer is to put a zero-egress CDN or object store in front, not to pick between them on the per-gigabyte rate.
Compute
All compute →Object storage
All object storage →Egress
All egress →Footprint
All footprint →| Metric | AWS | Google Cloud |
|---|---|---|
| Regionshigher is better | 87 countries | 25Cheaper25 countries |
Neither provider runs an affiliate programme; Pikkly earns nothing from this page.