Google Cloud Filestore vs Amazon EFS
Compare Google Cloud Filestore vs Amazon EFS for managed NFS filesystems and application fit. Review the deployment model, migration work and proposed acceptance checks.
Which option fits the workload?
Consider Google Cloud Filestore when Linux workloads in Google Cloud need a managed NFS file service. Consider Amazon EFS when AWS workloads need shared file storage through Amazon EFS. Validate the required configuration and operating responsibilities before comparing costs.
Seven differences that change the shortlist
| Buying question | Google Cloud Filestore | Amazon EFS |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Google Cloud | AWS |
| Storage type | Managed file storage | Managed elastic file storage |
| Application interface | NFS file access | NFS file access |
| Deployment configuration | Filestore instance and service tier | EFS filesystem and selected performance configuration |
| Network access | Google Cloud network configuration | AWS VPC and mount-target configuration |
| Data protection | Review supported backup and recovery settings | Review supported backup and recovery settings |
| Cost exercise | Provisioned configuration, capacity and protection requirements | Storage, access pattern and configured performance requirements |
Four worked buying briefs
These are hypothetical scenarios with explicit assumptions. They do not establish equal capabilities, measured usability or a negotiated price.
| Requirement | Proposed exercise | Accept when |
|---|---|---|
| NFS mount | Mount the test filesystem from the intended application hosts. | Only approved hosts can mount and access the share. |
| Permissions | Create files under the application's intended user identities. | File ownership and access modes match requirements. |
| Concurrent access | Run a representative multi-client application operation. | The application behaves correctly with shared access. |
| Recovery | Recover a disposable test directory using the planned protection method. | Recovered files and permissions pass application checks. |
NFS mount
Can the team mount the test filesystem from the intended application hosts?
Google Cloud Filestore: Using Google Cloud Filestore, mount the test filesystem from the intended application hosts.
Amazon EFS: Using Amazon EFS, mount the test filesystem from the intended application hosts.
Only approved hosts can mount and access the share.
Permissions
Can the team create files under the application's intended user identities?
Google Cloud Filestore: Using Google Cloud Filestore, create files under the application's intended user identities.
Amazon EFS: Using Amazon EFS, create files under the application's intended user identities.
File ownership and access modes match requirements.
Concurrent access
Can the team run a representative multi-client application operation?
Google Cloud Filestore: Using Google Cloud Filestore, run a representative multi-client application operation.
Amazon EFS: Using Amazon EFS, run a representative multi-client application operation.
The application behaves correctly with shared access.
Recovery
Can the team recover a disposable test directory using the planned protection method?
Google Cloud Filestore: Using Google Cloud Filestore, recover a disposable test directory using the planned protection method.
Amazon EFS: Using Amazon EFS, recover a disposable test directory using the planned protection method.
Recovered files and permissions pass application checks.
Architecture and application fit
Filestore and EFS serve applications that need a shared filesystem rather than an object bucket. Start with NFS compatibility, file ownership, permissions, directory structure and the application's locking requirements.
A Google Cloud workload usually has a simpler integration path to Filestore, while an AWS workload has a simpler integration path to EFS. Cross-cloud mounts introduce network and operating considerations that a storage-feature checklist can miss.
Google Cloud Filestore product documentation ↗ · Amazon EFS product information ↗
Cost and migration planning
Price the storage configuration against the same dataset, throughput needs and resilience requirement. Provisioning and performance models differ, so comparing capacity alone can misrepresent the cost.
Migrate a representative directory tree and verify permissions and application behaviour. A byte-count match is insufficient if file ownership, access modes or application concurrency changes after migration.
Questions before you choose
When should I choose Google Cloud Filestore over Amazon EFS?
Consider Google Cloud Filestore when Linux workloads in Google Cloud need a managed NFS file service. Consider Amazon EFS when AWS workloads need shared file storage through Amazon EFS. Validate the required configuration and operating responsibilities before comparing costs.
What should we include in the cost comparison?
Price the storage configuration against the same dataset, throughput needs and resilience requirement. Provisioning and performance models differ, so comparing capacity alone can misrepresent the cost.
What should we test before a production migration?
Migrate a representative directory tree and verify permissions and application behaviour. A byte-count match is insufficient if file ownership, access modes or application concurrency changes after migration.
Turn the comparison into your own evaluation
Use the same criteria and priorities for both products, keep unknowns unassessed and record the plan and evidence behind your ratings.
Build a Google Cloud Filestore vs Amazon EFS scorecard →Keep the assumptions with the figures
Use the date, billing cycle, units and limits with each example. Check current account terms before purchasing. Unverified prices and model costs stay unpriced.
Download the buying examples as JSON ↓Share the comparison
Use these examples when discussing the shortlist with your team.