Provider at a glance
- Category
- Decentralised Storage
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- storj.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 67 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Storj
S3-compatible decentralised object storage
Decentralised Storage
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 7 decentralised storage in the published ranking
67
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $840 your cost/yr
In insolvency proceedings. Storj's operator has been in Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code (voluntary filing) since 26 July 2026: case 5:26-bk-00512, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. This notice does not change the score, which comes from the published criteria; read the operator's notice before you send money or data. The operator's notice (checked 10 October 2026).
Is Storj right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Retrieval cost and read path8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)7/10 here; Sia scores 10
- Durability: contractual or aspirational5/10 here; Sia scores 7
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)1/10 here; Arweave scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best storage network shows where it lands for you.
What will Storj cost you?
$840 your cost/yr
- Usage per month
- 10
- Price per unit
- $7
$668 above the median of 6 priced decentralised storage.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Storj?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Storj
Compare all 4- 2Sia8 points above · stronger on verified cost per tb year (10 against 7)75$96
- 4Arweave4 points below · stronger on exit and continuity risk (8 against 1)63
- 5Walrus5 points below · stronger on exit and continuity risk (5 against 1)62$2.76
For your setup
Find out if Storj fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Storj lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best storage networkNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Storj ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (17.3 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
307+6.725.010#3/7Loading evidence…
305+4.805.08#4/7Loading evidence…
208+5.125.08#1/7Loading evidence…
201+0.644.08#7/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−8behind Sia, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 65–69 and stays #3
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Storj’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Durability: contractual or aspirational 5 → 10 on its ladder · passes Sia+576#3 → #2
What happens when you stop paying (or they do) 1 → 8 on its ladder · passes Sia+776#3 → #2
Verified cost per TB-year (normalised) 7 → 4 on its ladder · Arweave passes it−361#3 → #5
Durability: contractual or aspirational 5 → 2 on its ladder · Arweave passes it−361#3 → #5
Retrieval cost and read path 8 → 4 on its ladder · Arweave passes it−462#3 → #5
Smallest climb: durability: contractual or aspirational 5 → 10 passes Sia, #2.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Retrieval cost and read path — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised) — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Durability: contractual or aspirational — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do) — 1/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- You are buying from a company that filed Chapter 11 on 26 July 2026, under a pricing migration whose opt-out path is 'your account will be frozen and data deleted within 45 days' - and the EU opt-in deadline of 30 July 2026 has already elapsed.
- Full-text search of the simplified page returns zero hits for '0.004' and '0.007'. Those rates live on a separate page, https://storj.dev/dcs/pricing/legacy, which does state verbatim: '$0.004 per GB Month — Storage is calculated based on bytes uploaded, including encryption-based overhead' and '$0.007 per GB — Bandwidth is calculated based on bytes downloaded, including long-tail elimination-related bandwidth.' The FACTS are correct; the source URL is not. Split the citation. (The simplified page carries, verbatim: $7/$10/$7, a 30-day minimum, a 50 kB minimum, a $5 minimum fee, the 45-day deletion and EU July 30/31 language, Effective Date July 1 2026.)
- Storj's own pricing page states the new structure 'allowed us to reduce egress on the Standard tier from $20/TB to $7/TB'. Storage went $4 -> $7/TB/month (+75%, correct), but egress fell sharply against the intervening tiered regime. There were three regimes, not two (legacy pre-Nov-2025, tiered post-Nov-2025, simplified from 1 July 2026), and the finding compares storage across the first and third while ignoring egress entirely. As written it reads as an unqualified price rise, which an egress-heavy buyer would act on wrongly. Reframe as 'storage up 75%, egress down' or drop the sweeping clause.
Competitive position
Where Storj leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#3 / 713.0 of 30 · best 18.0
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Storj leads
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)#3 / 7
- Retrieval cost and read path#1 / 7
Where it trails
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)#7 / 7
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Arweave#4 of 7 · score 63 · 4.0 points behind
Storj leads on
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)7 vs 3
- Durability: contractual or aspirational5 vs 4
- Retrieval cost and read path8 vs 5
Arweave leads on
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)8 vs 1
Largest single reason Storj is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Arweave has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Walrus#5 of 7 · score 62 · 5.0 points behind
Storj leads on
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)7 vs 2
- Retrieval cost and read path8 vs 6
Walrus leads on
- Durability: contractual or aspirational6 vs 5
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)5 vs 1
Largest single reason Storj is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Walrus is −$837 against Storj.
Sia#2 of 7 · score 75 · 8.0 points ahead
Storj leads on
- Retrieval cost and read path8 vs 4
Sia leads on
- Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)10 vs 7
- Durability: contractual or aspirational7 vs 5
- What happens when you stop paying (or they do)4 vs 1
Largest single reason Sia is ahead: published criteria (+8.1 display points).Scenario cost: Sia is −$744 against Storj.
Against the leader
80 vs 67 · gap 13.0Why Filecoin ranks above Storj
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 13.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisFilecoinGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.018.0−13.0, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisFilecoinPoints
Verified cost per TB-year (normalised) · w3079−1.92, worse
Durability: contractual or aspirational · w3058−2.88, worse
Retrieval cost and read path · w2086+1.28, better
What happens when you stop paying (or they do) · w2016−3.20, worse
Net6780−13.0
Your scenario
What Storj costs on your scenario
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Usage per month · your input10
Price per unit · published rate$7
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$840
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$1726 of 7 rows priced · Storj +$668 vs median
Cheapest priced$2.76 · WalrusStorj costs +$837 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Walrus
1 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #3 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Verified cost per TB-year (normalised)strength 7 · weight 30Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Durability: contractual or aspirationalstrength 5 · weight 30Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Retrieval cost and read pathstrength 8 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.What happens when you stop paying (or they do)strength 1 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Liveness failure (Storj 5/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Durability: contractual or aspirational · 30%
- Exit failure (Storj 1/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by What happens when you stop paying (or they do) · 20%
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Verified cost per TB-year (normalised) (30%), Retrieval cost and read path (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Simplified pricing (storj.dev/dcs/pricing/simplified, "Effective Date: July 1, 2026 Last Updated: July 15, 2026", read 22 October 2026): Standard "Storage cost $7/TB/month", "Egress cost $7/TB"; Advanced "$10/TB/month" storage, "$7/TB" egress. "Minimum storage duration 30 days", "Minimum object size 50 kB". "A $5 minimum monthly fee applies to all active storage accounts." "If your total usage is less than $5, you are charged $5 for that month. Accounts paying with USDC are exempt from the minimum monthly fee." Worked example on the page: "Storing 1 TB in the Standard tier for a full month = $7" (arithmetic: 84 USD/TB-year). Migration terms on the same page: "If you opt-out, your account will be frozen and data deleted within 45 days"; "EU customers must explicitly Opt-In by July 30, 2026, otherwise their accounts will be frozen on July 31, 2026 and deleted 45 days later."Storj — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDStorj — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Global service. Storj's Terms of Service (storj.io/legal/terms-of-service, Last Updated 25 March 2025, read 22 October 2026) say: "The Storage Services may not be used in any country that is subject to an embargo by the United States, and Customer may not use the Storage Services in violation of any export restriction or embargo or sanctions by the United States or any other applicable jurisdiction." They name no country. The Advanced tier offers region-specific storage for data residency. Under the July 2026 pricing migration, the pricing page says EU accounts that did not opt in by 30 July 2026 "will be frozen on July 31, 2026 and deleted 45 days later", which falls on 14 September 2026.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Storj: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
9 methodology entries
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 67, #3 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt decentralised_storage:storj:2026.10.18:e8784679ac71
Are you Storj? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.