Table of Contents
Editors Need Storage That’s Fast, Cheap, and Predictable
If you work with video, you know that raw footage eats space. Whether you’re backing up project folders, archiving terabytes of old client work, or enabling remote collaboration, cloud storage can either be a tool or a tax.
Editors need:
- Affordable cost per terabyte
- Simple pricing—no surprise charges for downloading files
- Integrations with NAS devices, editing tools, or MAMs
- Enough performance to stream proxies or transfer large assets without bottlenecks
Most general-purpose storage doesn’t meet these needs. This post compares five “cheap cloud storage” options to see what works, what breaks, and where the hidden costs live.
What Counts as “Cheap” in Cloud Storage
There’s no standard definition of “cheap,” so we’re using this bar:
- Storage cost under $0.02 per GB per month
- Low or zero egress fees
- No required minimums or hidden charges
Anything more than that, and you’re paying for features (or overhead) you may not need.
1) Backblaze B2
Low-cost, S3-compatible object storage with a strong ecosystem. Flat-rate pricing, widely adopted by creatives, and easily integrated with NAS or tools like
LucidLink.
Backblaze
2) Wasabi
Fixed pricing, no egress charges, and positioned as a “hot cloud” storage alternative to AWS S3. Similar to Backblaze with subtle differences in billing model and ecosystem.
Wasabi
3) Contabo Object Storage
Budget European cloud with low per-GB pricing. Not built for media workflows, but attractive on price alone.
Contabo
4) DigitalOcean Spaces
S3-compatible storage integrated into DigitalOcean’s developer platform. Slightly higher cost, but useful for teams already on DO compute.
DigitalOcean
5) OVHcloud Object Storage
European cloud provider with predictable pricing and optional “cold” or “standard” tiers. Attractive for data sovereignty and pricing structure.
OVHcloud
Comparison Table: Cost, Workflow Support, and Performance
| Vendor |
Storage Price (per GB) |
Egress Fee |
Active Editing Support |
NLE / NAS Integration |
Notes |
|
Backblaze B2
|
$0.005 |
$0.01 per GB |
Yes, with LucidLink |
Works with Synology,
Arq,
QNAP
|
Best ecosystem support |
|
Wasabi
|
~$0.00599 (with min) |
None |
Limited |
Supports common sync tools |
Good for archive, not active edit |
|
Contabo
|
$0.0025 |
None (limited API) |
No |
Limited |
Cheap, but lacks integrations |
|
DigitalOcean Spaces
|
$0.02 (includes 1TB egress) |
Overages apply |
No |
S3-compatible |
Best for devs already on DO |
|
OVHcloud
|
$0.013 (cold), $0.022 (standard) |
$0.01 per GB |
No |
Basic S3-compatible |
Better for EU teams needing sovereignty |
Backblaze vs Wasabi: Which Works Better for Editors
Both are S3-compatible and offer flat pricing models, but there are meaningful differences.
Backblaze B2:
- Lower base pricing: $5 per TB per month
- Egress fee: $0.01 per GB (but can be minimized or bypassed via partner tools)
- Best-in-class integrations: LucidLink, Synology, Arq, QNAP, iconik
- Trusted by post teams for both archive and remote proxy workflows
Wasabi:
- Slightly higher cost with a minimum usage commitment (1TB/month for 90 days)
- No egress charges
- Not as widely integrated with creative-specific tools
- Better suited to long-term storage, not production workflows
If you’re actively working with footage—not just backing it up—
Backblaze
is easier to integrate, easier to scale, and offers better tooling flexibility.
Contabo, OVHcloud, and DigitalOcean: What You Gain and Lose
Contabo Object Storage:
- Strength: Dirt-cheap pricing at $2.50 per TB
- Weakness: Minimal integration, no real workflow compatibility
- Verdict: Viable only for deep archive or technical users willing to build tooling
OVHcloud Object Storage:
- Strength: Reasonable pricing for cold storage, EU data residency
- Weakness: Slower setup, not tuned for NLE or media use
- Verdict: Best for compliance-sensitive backup, not live teams
DigitalOcean Spaces:
- Strength: Familiar to developers, integrates with DO compute
- Weakness: Price creeps up quickly for storage-heavy workloads
- Verdict: Fine for devs storing code or assets, less ideal for post workflows
Best Storage by Use Case
| Use Case |
Best Option |
Why |
| Active editing with proxies |
Backblaze B2
|
Best integration with LucidLink and editing pipelines
|
| Cold archive or raw footage dump |
Wasabi
|
No egress and good long-term cost structure |
| Minimal-budget long-term backup |
Contabo
|
Cheapest option, but requires workarounds |
| EU-based production with compliance needs |
OVHcloud
|
Sovereign hosting, priced fairly for long-term use |
| Developer-centric asset hosting |
DigitalOcean
|
Works well with existing DO stacks, but pricey for scale |
Final Take: Cheap Matters, but Compatibility Wins
If you’re a video editor or studio storing terabytes of footage, raw “price per gigabyte” only tells part of the story. You need storage that plays well with your workflow, whether you’re backing up, editing remotely, or collaborating across time zones.
Backblaze B2
wins for teams that care about simplicity, integrations, and cost transparency.
The others each serve niche needs—but only
Backblaze
consistently meets the performance and compatibility needs of editors without breaking your budget.
