Storj

Storj — Decentralised erasure-coded storage: USD 4/TB stored, USD 7/TB egress, no regions. Storj splits every object into erasure-coded pieces spread across thousands of independent operator nodes worldwide, then reassembles them on read. Durability comes from that spread rather than from replicas in a datacentre, and there are no regions to choose. It is priced attractively and its access-grant model is the most granular here, but reassembly means first-byte latency is structurally higher than a conventional store. Built by Storj Labs. Founded 2014.

We track it in 1 comparison — S3-compatible storage — so every claim below is a cell in a table you can open and check rather than an impression. Across those rosters it sits against 11 other tools, and what follows is where it visibly separates from them.

Where it wins.

• Uptime SLA — 99.95 %, 2nd of 9.
• Storage $/TB/mo — $4 /TB/mo, tied for best across 2 of 11 tools.
• Replication model — erasure-coded, 3rd of 12.

Each of those is ranked against the whole roster on its category page, not against a hand-picked subset, so a first place here means first of everything we list.

Provenance. 26 of 28 tracked fields carry a value for Storj, and 8 of those cite a document you can open. Last verified 2026-07-23. Every figure keeps its own provenance — measured by us, claimed by the vendor, inferred, or community-reported — and we would rather print a dash than a guess.

Its nearest neighbour in our data is AWS S3. Storj is ahead on Egress $/TB ($7 /TB against $90 /TB) and True cost /mo (USD) ($39 /mo against $472.6 /mo). AWS S3 takes Event notifications (Yes against No) and Official MCP server (Yes against No). That pattern repeats across the rest of the roster — see Storj alternatives for the other rivals, each compared the same way.

Company

Storj Labs

Founded

2014

Fields we track

26 of 28

Last verified

2026-07-23

The cheapest storage on the page and a genuinely different durability model, undercut by first-byte latency the architecture cannot fix. Strong for large-object distribution and backups; poor for a hot path serving many small files.

True cost /mo (USD)

$39 /mo5th of 9

Inferredverified 2026-07-23source

Egress $/TB

$7 /TB6th of 11

Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-23source

Uptime SLA

99.95 %2nd of 9

Inferredverified 2026-07-23

True cost /mo (AUD)

A$59.28 /mo5th of 9

Inferredverified 2026-07-23

Storage $/TB/mo

$4 /TB/mo1st of 11

Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-23source

S3 API coverage

80 %8th of 12

Inferred

Replication model

erasure-coded3rd of 12

Vendor-claimedverified 2026-07-23source

Min retention

0 ms1st of 12

Inferred

Storj is the right call in these situations, each one drawn from a field we actually record:

• Large-object distribution — datasets, model weights, video masters.
• Backups where surviving a whole-region failure matters more than latency.
• Workloads that benefit from delegatable, expiring, prefix-scoped access grants.
• Uptime SLA is your binding constraint. Storj records 99.95 %, 2nd of 9 in the S3-compatible storage roster. We define that field as contractual monthly availability target for the standard object storage tier, as published in the provider's SLA and backed by service credits.
• Storage $/TB/mo is your binding constraint. Storj records $4 /TB/mo, the best figure in the S3-compatible storage roster. We define that field as marginal list price to store one terabyte (1,000 GB) in the provider's standard or hot class for one month, at pay-as-you-go rates with no commitment.
• Replication model is your binding constraint. Storj records erasure-coded, 3rd of 12 in the S3-compatible storage roster.

Nothing in our data disqualifies Storj on a field we score — it is not bottom of its roster on anything weighted. That does not make it universally correct. The honest failure modes for a tool in this position are commercial rather than technical: pricing that changes under you, a licence that changes under you, or a roadmap that drifts away from your use case. Check the timeline for changes we have logged, and Storj alternatives for what teams move to when it stops fitting.

What we don't know. 2 of the 28 fields we track for Storj are still blank: Egress cap (x stored) and Lifecycle rules. Those render as dashes rather than as zeroes or assumptions, because an empty cell and a bad cell are not the same thing and only one of them is honest. If you know any of these figures and can point at a document, tell us.