Less Setup
Cloudflare R2 vs Filebase
R2 and Filebase are close on storage economics.
Choose Filebase when you want faster-feeling storage and less tooling complexity.
Best for teams that want custom domains, CDN-backed delivery, and a more focused object storage workflow without assembling multiple Cloudflare product layers.
The benchmark results support the speed claim
Since Cloudflare R2 and Filebase are already close on storage economics and both support free egress, performance is where the decision gets clearer. In benchmark testing, Filebase showed stronger throughput and better tail latency on both uploads and downloads.
Throughput
Across the benchmark runs reviewed, Filebase sustained materially higher transfer rates. On GET downloads it reached 352.09 MiB/s versus 62.23 MiB/s for Cloudflare R2, and on PUT uploads it reached 258.6 MiB/s versus 13.78 MiB/s.
Supporting cuts from the same benchmark file: Filebase also reached 18.76x higher PUT object throughput and 5.66x higher GET object throughput on `obj/s`.
p99 latency
The tail-latency gap is one of the strongest proof points in the file. On GET requests, Filebase posted 47.1ms p99 latency versus 263.3ms for Cloudflare R2. On PUT requests, Filebase posted 100.2ms versus 1358.4ms.
Supporting cuts from the same benchmark file: Filebase also showed 92.6% lower PUT p99 latency and 83.3% lower GET p99 TTFB.
What stands out most in the results
The benchmark story here is not about beating R2 on storage price. It is that Filebase combined similar core economics with materially stronger delivery performance and a more direct product path.
18.8x faster PUT throughput
5.66x faster GET throughput
Both products offer free egress
82% lower GET p99 latency
Benchmark figures on this page are based on internal WARP object storage tests run from a DigitalOcean droplet in New York using MinIO’s WARP benchmarking tool, reviewed on May 19, 2026. Results reflect that specific test environment and can vary based on region, network path, object size, concurrency, and workload shape.
Pricing and product references were checked on May 18, 2026. Cloudflare figures are based on published R2 pricing, public bucket documentation, cache documentation for R2, and Cloudflare's S3 compatibility docs. This page intentionally avoids publishing unsourced benchmark numbers.
Why teams choose Filebase over R2
This is the comparison for buyers who do not need a pricing winner. They need the simpler path to production.
Less setup
R2 works best when you are comfortable inside the broader Cloudflare stack. Filebase is easier when you want the storage layer to feel more self-contained.
Built-in CDN
R2 can benefit from Cloudflare Cache, but that adds more cache behavior and custom-domain setup choices. Filebase keeps CDN-backed delivery more direct.
Faster path
For teams that care about upload and download speed, Filebase is the stronger option. The benchmark results show a clear gap on both throughput and tail latency.
Custom domains
Both products support custom domains. Filebase is easier when you want that capability without as much surrounding delivery-rule work.
Focused product
Filebase is a better fit when you want a focused storage-and-delivery platform instead of stitching together adjacent services to shape behavior.
Cleaner production
Cloudflare documents `r2.dev` as non-production and rate limited. Filebase keeps the production delivery path easier to understand from the start.
Comparison FAQs
Common questions from teams comparing Filebase and Cloudflare R2 for object storage.
Ready to keep the economics and lose the extra setup?
Use Filebase when you want object storage that feels faster, cleaner, and more focused than a broader platform assembly.