AIOZ Pin vs Filebase: S3-Compatible vs Web3-Native IPFS

AIOZ Pin vs Filebase comes down to two different pricing philosophies applied to the same underlying protocol. AIOZ Pin charges one flat rate per TB regardless of scale. Filebase bundles a chunk of storage and bandwidth into a low monthly base fee, then charges overage at a rate that, worked out per GB, actually undercuts AIOZ Pin's flat rate. This comparison runs the real numbers so the cheaper option depends on your usage, not a guess.

TL;DR:

• Filebase's Pro plan works out cheaper than AIOZ Pin at every usage level tested here, roughly $15/TB effective versus AIOZ Pin's flat $20/TB
• AIOZ Pin's edges: simpler pricing with no plan tiers to reason about
• AIOZ Pin also has a dedicated pinNft() method for NFT pinning, something Filebase has no native equivalent for

AIOZ Pin vs Filebase at a Glance

Running the Real Numbers

At exactly Filebase Pro's included caps, 500GB storage and 250GB bandwidth a month, Filebase costs a flat $7.50. AIOZ Pin, billed the same way at that usage, costs $10 (storage) plus $5 (bandwidth), $15 total, twice as much. Push past those caps to 1TB storage and 500GB bandwidth: Filebase's $7.50 base plus $7.50 storage overage (500GB over the included amount, at $0.015/GB) plus $3.75 bandwidth overage comes to $18.75. AIOZ Pin at the same usage is $20 plus $10, $30. Filebase's published pricing undercuts AIOZ Pin's flat rate at every level tested here, because its $0.015/GB overage rate works out to roughly $15/TB, cheaper than AIOZ Pin's $20/TB even before counting the bundled allowance.

At very low usage, under Filebase's free tier caps (5GB storage, 1GB egress), Filebase costs nothing, while AIOZ Pin, having no free storage allowance, would charge a small fraction of a dollar for the same usage. For a project just starting out and staying small, Filebase's free tier is the more forgiving starting point.

Where Filebase's S3 Compatibility Actually Matters

Filebase's headline feature is a genuinely S3-compatible API, meaning existing code written against AWS S3 can often point at Filebase with minimal changes rather than a rewrite. AIOZ Pin doesn't offer this, its API and SDK are built around IPFS-native pinning concepts (CIDs, pins, gateways) rather than S3's bucket-and-object model. If your project already has real infrastructure built on S3 semantics, Filebase's compatibility layer is a meaningful practical advantage AIOZ Pin can't match without a rewrite of your storage layer.

Where AIOZ Pin's NFT Tooling Is the Difference

Filebase supports NFT platforms as customers, but per its own pricing and feature pages, it doesn't offer dedicated NFT minting or metadata tooling, it's general-purpose object storage that happens to work for NFT files. AIOZ Pin's pinNft() method pins an NFT's asset and metadata together in one call specifically, closing the failure mode where one gets pinned and the other doesn't. If NFT-specific tooling matters more to your workflow than S3 compatibility or the lowest per-GB rate, that's a real point in AIOZ Pin's favor.

Where the Math Shifts: Storage-Heavy vs. Egress-Heavy

The numbers above assume storage and bandwidth grow together, roughly proportional usage, which is the common case but not the only one. Filebase's Pro plan charges the identical $0.015/GB overage rate for both storage and bandwidth past the included allowance, so what actually moves the comparison isn't a different per-GB rate between the two, it's how far past its own included cap each resource sits. Storage gets 500GB included; bandwidth gets half that, 250GB. A project with a large, rarely-accessed archive, cold storage with minimal retrieval traffic, blows past the storage cap while barely touching the bandwidth one, and gets the full benefit of that larger included allowance. A project with a smaller dataset but heavy read traffic, a popular NFT collection under constant marketplace preview requests, hits the smaller bandwidth cap sooner relative to its usage, narrowing Filebase's advantage even though the underlying overage rate never changes. Neither pattern flips the overall result at the usage levels tested here, but which resource actually dominates your own usage is worth checking before assuming the aggregate numbers above transfer directly onto your specific project.

Which One Should You Choose

Pick Filebase if raw cost per GB is the deciding factor, you want an actual free tier to start on, or you have existing S3-based tooling you'd rather not rewrite. Pick AIOZ Pin if you want a single flat rate with no plan tiers to model against your usage, you're specifically pinning NFT assets and want a method built for that exact case, or you'd rather pay with a crypto wallet than a credit card. Both implement standard IPFS pinning concepts underneath, the real difference is pricing structure and how each API is shaped around your specific use case.

What Neither Vendor's Pricing Page Tells You

One limitation worth naming directly: both comparisons above are built from list pricing published on each vendor's own site, not a negotiated enterprise rate, and neither company publishes a formal SLA with the numbers used here. For a project small enough to run on either service's standard plan, list pricing is the real number that applies. For anything large enough to be discussing custom terms directly with either vendor, treat every figure in this article as the public starting point for that conversation, not the final word on what a large deployment would actually pay.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is AIOZ Pin cheaper than Filebase? Not at the usage levels tested here. Filebase's Pro plan, worked out per GB, comes to roughly $15/TB effective versus AIOZ Pin's flat $20/TB, making Filebase cheaper across the range from its included caps upward.

Does Filebase have a free tier? Yes, 5GB storage, 500 pinned files, and 1GB of IPFS egress at no cost. AIOZ Pin has no free storage or bandwidth allowance, only 40,000 free pinned files.

Is Filebase S3-compatible? Yes, that's its core differentiator, existing code written against AWS S3 can often point at Filebase with minimal changes. AIOZ Pin's API is IPFS-native, not S3-compatible.

Does Filebase have NFT-specific tooling like AIOZ Pin's pinNft()? No dedicated equivalent. Filebase supports NFT platforms as customers but offers general object storage rather than a method built specifically to pin an NFT's asset and metadata together.

Which is better for a small project just starting out? Filebase's free tier is the more forgiving starting point for very small or early-stage projects, since it costs nothing until you exceed its included limits.

Related Reading

• AIOZ Pin vs Pinata: IPFS Pinning Service Compared 2026 - how AIOZ Pin compares against the other major pinning provider
• Best NFT.storage Alternatives in 2026 (Featuring AIOZ Pin) - where Filebase and AIOZ Pin both appear as migration options
• Why NFT Projects Need a Pinning Service, Not Just IPFS - the underlying problem AIOZ Pin's NFT tooling addresses

References

• Filebase Pricing
• AIOZ Pin Payment Documentation