Softwr

File Storage · head to head

LucidLink vs Storj

LucidLink logo

LucidLink

File Storage

Cloud filesystem that streams large media files on demand instead of syncing them

From
$7/month
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Storj logo

Storj

File Storage

S3-compatible object storage distributed in encrypted pieces across independently operated nodes

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Only Storj has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: LucidLink additional storage at $7 to $8 per 100GB per month is roughly three to four times raw S3 pricing, so teams with large cold archives pay a heavy premium for data they rarely touch.; Storj billing includes a per segment charge and every object consumes at least one segment, so a bucket holding millions of small files can cost several times what the four dollar per terabyte headline implies.
  • They diverge on capability: LucidLink covers Filespaces, Storj covers Erasure coded distribution.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which LucidLink and Storj actually diverge.

Attributes where LucidLink and Storj differ
AttributeLucidLinkStorj
Starting price$7/monthFree
Pricing modelPer member per month plus storagePer terabyte per month
Free tierNoYes
PlatformsmacOS, Windows, Linux, iOSWeb, API, Linux, macOS, Windows

Identical on both: user rating (Not yet rated), category (File Storage).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in LucidLink

  • Filespaces
  • On-demand streaming
  • Client-side encryption
  • Customer-managed keys
  • Bring your own storage
  • Snapshots

Only in Storj

  • Erasure coded distribution
  • Client side encryption
  • S3-compatible gateway
  • Native uplink access
  • Object Lock and versioning
  • Storj Select

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

LucidLink

  • A post house with editors in three countries cutting from one shared 4K rush library without shipping drivesnot Storj
  • A broadcaster giving freelancers access to a project for a fortnight without provisioning VPN and a NAS mountnot Storj
  • A game studio sharing multi-gigabyte asset builds where syncing every file to every workstation is impracticalnot Storj
  • An architecture practice opening large point cloud and BIM files from a laptop on a hotel connectionnot Storj

Storj

  • An offsite backup or archive target where the data is large, written once and occasionally restorednot LucidLink
  • Serving large media files internationally without paying hyperscaler egress ratesnot LucidLink
  • Storing data where the objection to AWS, Azure or Google is jurisdiction and concentration rather than costnot LucidLink
  • A second, independent copy of a dataset that already lives in a hyperscaler bucketnot LucidLink

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

LucidLink

  • Additional storage at $7 to $8 per 100GB per month is roughly three to four times raw S3 pricing, so teams with large cold archives pay a heavy premium for data they rarely touch.
  • Included storage is pooled per member, so adding a seat is also how you buy capacity, and teams with a few heavy users and many light ones buy seats purely for the gigabytes.
  • Performance is bounded by the network link and local cache size, so a workstation with a small cache on a poor connection performs far worse than the demonstrations suggest.
  • Small-file and metadata-heavy workloads such as code repositories, node modules trees or build outputs perform badly, so it is not a general-purpose file server replacement.
  • Customer-managed keys and bring your own storage are Enterprise-tier options, so organisations that cannot let a vendor hold their keys cannot use the published pricing at all.

Storj

  • Billing includes a per segment charge and every object consumes at least one segment, so a bucket holding millions of small files can cost several times what the four dollar per terabyte headline implies.
  • Reconstructing an object requires responses from dozens of independent nodes, so time to first byte is noticeably higher than a centralised bucket and it is a poor fit behind a latency sensitive read path.
  • Performance depends on the mix of node operators serving you at that moment rather than on a datacentre you can raise a ticket against, so slow reads are diagnosed statistically rather than fixed.
  • The hosted S3 gateway terminates encryption on Storj infrastructure, so using the convenient access path gives up the end to end encryption that is the main architectural argument for the service.
  • The S3 gateway is compatible rather than identical, so tools that lean on less common API calls, multipart edge cases or unusual header behaviour need testing before you commit a workload to it.

Pricing, plan by plan

LucidLink

$7/month
  • Starter$7/month
    • 100GB included per member, pooled across the team
    • Additional storage $7 per 100GB per month
    • Client-side encryption
  • Business$32/month
    • $27 per member per month billed annually
    • 400GB included per member, pooled across the team
    • Additional storage $8 per 100GB per month
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • Custom pricing and storage terms
    • Customer-managed encryption keys
    • Bring your own object storage bucket

Storj

Free
  • Free trialFree
    • 25 GB stored
    • 25 GB egress per month
    • No card required to start
  • Storj$4/month
    • 4 USD per terabyte stored per month
    • 7 USD per terabyte of egress
    • Per segment fee on top of stored volume

Which should you pick?

Choose LucidLink if

  • You need filespaces.
  • You work on macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS.
  • You also want on-demand streaming.
LucidLink review

Choose Storj if

  • You need erasure coded distribution.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Web, API, Linux, macOS, Windows.
  • You also want client side encryption.
Storj review

Questions people ask

Is LucidLink or Storj better?
Neither clearly leads. LucidLink starts at $7/month and Storj at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, LucidLink or Storj?
Storj has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at $7/month for LucidLink and Free for Storj.
Does LucidLink or Storj run on more platforms?
LucidLink runs on macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS. Storj runs on Web, API, Linux, macOS, Windows.
Can I use Storj for free?
Yes. Storj has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. LucidLink starts at $7/month.
What is LucidLink best used for?
LucidLink is most often used for a post house with editors in three countries cutting from one shared 4k rush library without shipping drives, a broadcaster giving freelancers access to a project for a fortnight without provisioning vpn and a nas mount, a game studio sharing multi-gigabyte asset builds where syncing every file to every workstation is impractical, an architecture practice opening large point cloud and bim files from a laptop on a hotel connection. Of those, a post house with editors in three countries cutting from one shared 4k rush library without shipping drives and a broadcaster giving freelancers access to a project for a fortnight without provisioning vpn and a nas mount are not what Storj is typically brought in for.
What can LucidLink do that Storj cannot?
LucidLink covers Filespaces, On-demand streaming, Client-side encryption, Customer-managed keys. Storj covers Erasure coded distribution, Client side encryption, S3-compatible gateway, Native uplink access.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

LucidLink: What does storage actually cost?

$7 per 100GB per month on Starter and $8 per 100GB per month on Business, above the pooled allowance. Model this separately from the seat cost.

Storj: Why is my bill higher than four dollars per terabyte?

Almost always the per segment fee. Objects are split into segments and small files each consume one, so a few million tiny objects generate a segment charge that dwarfs the storage line.

LucidLink: Can we hold our own encryption keys?

On the Enterprise tier, yes, along with pointing the filespace at your own S3 or Azure bucket. Not on Starter or Business.

Storj: Can node operators read my data?

No. Files are encrypted client side and each operator holds only an erasure coded fragment, which is not a readable portion of the file.

LucidLink: Does it work for source code?

Not well. It is built for large sequential reads. Many small files is the workload it handles worst.

Storj: Is there a minimum retention period?

No. You are billed for what you store while you store it, unlike several competitors that bill a ninety day minimum whatever you delete.

Storj: Is it fast enough to serve a website from?

For large files with parallel reads, yes. For many small objects where time to first byte matters, put a CDN in front of it or use something centralised.

Share

Related pages

More on LucidLink

More on Storj

Keep looking

Other head to heads