Pull your current retained-storage volume and multiply it by three rates: $7.99, $6.95, and $5.99. That spread is the whole story for an infra team this year, backup and archive storage just got more expensive at the two providers most teams default to, and the gap between "cheapest" and "most expensive" is now wide enough to matter on the annual bill. Run your own number against all three first; the rest of this post explains why the cheapest line item isn't automatically the right pick.
Two rate-card moves set the new baseline. Wasabi raised Pay-as-You-Go pricing to $7.99/TB-month effective July 1, 2026, across all regions. Backblaze raised B2 Pay-as-You-Go to $6.95/TB-month effective May 1, 2026, and removed API transaction fees in the same change. Akave Cloud Standard, the backup-and-archive tier, sits at $5.99/TB-month with 3× free egress. The headline rates shifted; the buyer questions didn't.
This comparison is about the storage retention layer
This is about backup, archive, and secondary storage for infra, DevOps, and storage teams, retained snapshots, DR copies, compliance archives, and cold data that rarely moves. It is not about active primary storage. Akave runs two tiers: Cloud Plus for active, high-performance workloads, and Cloud Standard for backup and archival use. Standard is the right Akave product to line up against Wasabi and Backblaze.
Where the three S3 Compatible storage providers sit in 2026
On the announced terms, Akave Standard enters this set with the lowest storage line item. But the S3 row matters as much as the price row, backup stacks lean on versioning, lifecycle policies, multipart uploads, pre-signed URLs, and object lock, so validate parity against your actual tooling regardless of which provider wins on price.
The math at the new rates from 1 July 2026
Take an infra team retaining 100TB of backups, DR copies, and compliance archives, restoring ~20TB in a representative month. Run that against each 2026 rate card:
At this scale Akave Standard runs $2,400/year below Wasabi and $1,152/year below Backblaze, before any difference in verification or workflow fit. The egress lines tie in this scenario because backup restores are modest, but the model diverges the moment restore behavior gets noisy. Wasabi ties free egress to active stored volume, so spiky rehydration can push the egress side past the policy threshold; Backblaze and Akave both give a 3× free allowance before any per-GB charge. Swap in your own retention and restore numbers and the ranking holds, but the margins move.
Wasabi works best when data sits still
Wasabi's pitch is simple: one per-terabyte rate, no separate egress fee, no API request fees. The July 1 move from $6.99 to $7.99 is a ~14% increase, which Wasabi attributes to higher storage hardware, energy, and data-center costs. The fine print decides who still wins at the new rate. PAYG carries a 90-day minimum storage duration, delete an object early and you're billed through the minimum. There's a 1TB monthly billable floor, and free egress is tied to active stored volume, so heavy restores aren't actually free. For long-lived archives that don't move, Wasabi at $7.99 stays credible. For aggressive deletes or frequent rehydration, the policy details outweigh the headline rate.
Backblaze B2 is the familiar middle ground
Backblaze moved B2 to $6.95/TB-month and made API calls free in the same change, which cleans up request-side billing for high-volume, small-file backup patterns. The egress shape, free up to 3× average monthly storage, then $0.01/GB, fits backup and secondary storage well and avoids Wasabi's 90-day constraint. The trade-off is compatibility depth: Backblaze's own docs state the S3-compatible API implements the most commonly used actions, and list specific gaps, no object-level ACLs, no IAM roles, partial object tagging, no website configuration. For many backup workflows that's enough; for metadata-heavy stacks or deeper S3 edge cases, it's a real check to run.
Akave changes the backup contract, not just the rate
The sharp Akave angle isn't only the per-terabyte gap. It's the trust model. Traditional backup storage asks you to trust the provider: you get a bill, an API, and restore procedures. Akave Cloud Standard adds Proof-of-Data-Possession (PDP) attestations and ledger-anchored integrity evidence, shifting from provider assertion to evidence the buyer can inspect.
The mechanism: PDP produces a cryptographic proof that stored data is bit-for-bit identical to what was ingested, anchored on a dedicated immutable storage ledger that sits separately from the object store. The claim isn't that no one can modify the data, it's that any modification is independently detectable, including modification by Akave's own operators, and an external auditor can verify the proof without trusting Akave. For DR copies and compliance archives, that answers a question the rate card can't: not "do we have the data" but "can we prove it's there, intact, and unaltered." Keep the scope honest, PDP proves possession and integrity; restore performance and specific RTOs still need commercial validation against your workload.
The fastest way to test the claim: start a free trial, write an object, alter it, and watch the integrity check flag the mismatch.
Which provider should you pick for your data?
Choose Wasabi when retention easily clears the 90-day minimum, restore behavior fits the active-storage egress policy, and the data is stable archival that rarely moves, and you value a single flat rate over deeper differentiation.
Choose Backblaze B2 when your workflow fits the common S3 actions B2 supports, the 3× free-egress allowance covers your restores, free API calls matter for high-throughput small-file patterns, and you can accept the named compatibility gaps.
Shortlist Akave Cloud Standard when the workload pairs backup or archive with a compliance, audit, or trust requirement that goes past "cheap storage", DR copies an auditor will inspect, or archives where the question is "can we prove the data is unaltered." Akave lands at the lowest headline rate in this set on the announced terms, and stands alone on verification posture in the reviewed public materials.
Four questions to run on your own bill
- What do you pay to store retained data each month at the new rate cards, $7.99, $6.95, and $5.99?
- What happens when you rehydrate, mapped against each provider's egress policy?
- How deep does S3 compatibility need to go for your specific backup tooling?
- And do you only trust the provider, or do you get storage evidence you can inspect?
That last question is where Akave changes the frame, and for workloads where the answer matters, it changes the buy decision.
FAQ
What changed for Wasabi in 2026?
Wasabi raised Pay-as-You-Go pricing to $7.99/TB-month effective July 1, 2026, across all regions, citing higher storage hardware, energy, and data-center costs. Reserved Capacity Storage rebases to the $7.99 list price with term and capacity discounts applied on top, for new and renewing contracts on or after July 1.
Did Backblaze B2 raise prices too?
Yes. Backblaze moved B2 PAYG to $6.95/TB-month effective May 1, 2026, and removed API transaction fees in the same change. Existing committed contracts continue at their prior rate until renewal; new committed contracts price from $6.95/TB.
Is Akave Cloud Standard actually cheaper than Wasabi and Backblaze?
On the announced rate of $5.99/TB-month, yes, below Backblaze B2's $6.95 and below Wasabi's post–July 1 $7.99. At 100TB retained, that's roughly $1,152/year under Backblaze and $2,400/year under Wasabi. Treat Akave's pricing as announced terms that still warrant normal commercial validation.
What is Proof-of-Data-Possession and why does it matter for backup?
PDP is a cryptographic technique that lets a storage system produce verifiable proof it still holds a specific piece of data, intact and unmodified, without revealing the data. For backup and archive, it changes "how do I know the data is still there" from a provider assertion to an independently verifiable proof, which matters more than the per-terabyte rate for compliance archives and audit-relevant DR copies.
Does Akave support the S3 features my backup tooling needs?
Akave Cloud Standard is described as supporting standard backup and archival workflows over an S3-compatible API. Validate the specific actions your stack relies on, versioning, lifecycle policies, multipart uploads, pre-signed URLs, object lock, before procurement. The same discipline applies to Backblaze B2, which publishes named gaps (no object-level ACLs, no IAM roles, partial object tagging).
When should I run a full TCO comparison on these three?
Anytime retained storage is a meaningful line item, roughly 20–50TB sustained and up, anything with non-trivial restore patterns, or anything with compliance obligations attached. The policy details (90-day minimums, active-storage egress rules, S3 gaps) compound over a 12–24 month deployment, so the headline rate alone won't tell you the real cost.
Further Reading
- The Storage Squeeze: Why Wasabi, Backblaze, and others are raising prices in 2026
- Akave Cloud product overview
- Akave Cloud pricing
Sources
- Wasabi, "May 2026: Wasabi Pricing," May 11, 2026. https://docs.wasabi.com/docs/may-2026-wasabi-pricing
- Wasabi Pay-as-You-Go pricing FAQ. https://wasabi.com/pricing/faq
- Backblaze, "Backblaze Pricing and Product Updates," Mar 17, 2026 ($6/TB → $6.95/TB effective May 1, 2026; API calls free). https://noise.getoto.net/2026/03/17/backblaze-pricing-and-product-updates/
- Backblaze S3-Compatible API documentation (named gaps: object-level ACLs, IAM roles, object tagging, website configuration). https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/pricing
- Akave Cloud Standard-tier announcement. https://akave.com