Impossible Cloud

Name: Impossible Cloud
Brand: Impossible Cloud

AI Native

Europe's sovereign cloud storage

Est 2021|Valuation $150M|Raised $19.5M

LinkedIn 9K|Website|Web traffic 12K|FTEs 71|HQ Hamburg, Hamburg, DE

MarketsBackup and Data Protection

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Impossible Cloud vs Backblaze B2 - The vendor positions its offering with simple per-TB pricing and public statements regarding the absence of per-GB egress or API charges; Backblaze publishes lower base storage pricing in some cases and has a defined egress model that can be free under certain conditions but includes transaction pricing. - Competitive takeaway: for workloads with heavy restores/reads, both providers can be cost-effective depending on request/transaction volume and any usage policies; buyers should compare request/transaction fees (Backblaze) versus fair-use constraints (Impossible Cloud). Impossible Cloud vs Wasabi - Wasabi is frequently compared on retention minimums and pricing terms. Community comments suggest differences in minimum storage durations between providers; buyers should confirm retention terms and minimum storage durations in contract documents. Impossible Cloud vs Cloudflare R2 - Both vendors (or services) present models that reduce or eliminate egress fees for many web-serving scenarios, but Cloudflare R2 explicitly charges for operations (Class A/B). Buyers should evaluate request/operation patterns as well as egress behavior when comparing these options.

Market share and adoption trends

Major cloud providers dominate object storage overall. Alternative providers typically compete on cost predictability, data residency controls, or specific ecosystem advantages.
Vendor claims about customer count exist, but independent confirmation was not located in the public sources reviewed.

	Impossible Cloud	Backblaze B2	Cloudflare R2
Starting Price	Vendor-advertised published per-TB pricing; subject to vendor terms and limits	Published base storage pricing available from the vendor	Usage-based; egress is documented as free in many web-delivery scenarios but operation costs apply
Typical Use Cases	EU-focused S3-compatible storage for backups/archives and regulated-data scenarios (vendor positioning)	Cost-focused S3-compatible storage with documented transaction pricing and public community usage	Edge-integrated storage for web delivery where egress from edge is minimized
Key Observations	Simple per-TB pricing presentation; vendor states no egress/API charges but includes a fair-use policy that should be reviewed	Lower base storage in published pricing; transaction pricing and egress model require review depending on workload	Explicitly documents zero egress for many use cases, but operational (request) costs apply
Key Weaknesses	Limited independent review volume; fair-use and fair-egress policy caveats; shorter public track record	Transaction pricing can be significant for high-request workloads; egress/free conditions apply	Request operation costs can be significant for some workloads; not a universal replacement for storage+CDN architectures

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative competitive analysis

Impossible Cloud vs Backblaze B2

The vendor positions its offering with simple per-TB pricing and public statements regarding the absence of per-GB egress or API charges; Backblaze publishes lower base storage pricing in some cases and has a defined egress model that can be free under certain conditions but includes transaction pricing.
Competitive takeaway: for workloads with heavy restores/reads, both providers can be cost-effective depending on request/transaction volume and any usage policies; buyers should compare request/transaction fees (Backblaze) versus fair-use constraints (Impossible Cloud).

Impossible Cloud vs Wasabi

Wasabi is frequently compared on retention minimums and pricing terms. Community comments suggest differences in minimum storage durations between providers; buyers should confirm retention terms and minimum storage durations in contract documents.

Impossible Cloud vs Cloudflare R2

Both vendors (or services) present models that reduce or eliminate egress fees for many web-serving scenarios, but Cloudflare R2 explicitly charges for operations (Class A/B). Buyers should evaluate request/operation patterns as well as egress behavior when comparing these options.

Market share and adoption trends

Major cloud providers dominate object storage overall. Alternative providers typically compete on cost predictability, data residency controls, or specific ecosystem advantages.
Vendor claims about customer count exist, but independent confirmation was not located in the public sources reviewed.

	Impossible Cloud	Backblaze B2	Cloudflare R2
Starting Price	Vendor-advertised published per-TB pricing; subject to vendor terms and limits	Published base storage pricing available from the vendor	Usage-based; egress is documented as free in many web-delivery scenarios but operation costs apply
Typical Use Cases	EU-focused S3-compatible storage for backups/archives and regulated-data scenarios (vendor positioning)	Cost-focused S3-compatible storage with documented transaction pricing and public community usage	Edge-integrated storage for web delivery where egress from edge is minimized
Key Observations	Simple per-TB pricing presentation; vendor states no egress/API charges but includes a fair-use policy that should be reviewed	Lower base storage in published pricing; transaction pricing and egress model require review depending on workload	Explicitly documents zero egress for many use cases, but operational (request) costs apply
Key Weaknesses	Limited independent review volume; fair-use and fair-egress policy caveats; shorter public track record	Transaction pricing can be significant for high-request workloads; egress/free conditions apply	Request operation costs can be significant for some workloads; not a universal replacement for storage+CDN architectures