True Global File System vs. Egnyte’s Fully Managed SaaS

Panzura CloudFS vs. Egnyte FAQs

• What is the true cost of data-intensive operations beyond licensing fees?

  The total cost of ownership (TCO) for data-intensive operations extends far beyond basic licensing fees to include hidden costs like bandwidth, operational overhead, and lost productivity. For example, duplicate data generates synchronization traffic and consumes backup bandwidth , while inefficient transfers drive up egress costs. Manual conflict resolution and synchronization delays also lead to significant productivity losses.

• How can organizations achieve data resilience and business continuity in the face of modern cyber threats?

  Achieving data resilience requires a proactive approach that goes beyond traditional, reactive backups. Modern solutions should integrate data protection directly into their architecture with features like immutable snapshots that are ransomware-proof. The most advanced built-in resilience model can provide a near-zero Recovery Point Objective (RPO), ensuring business continuity and minimal data loss during an attack.

• How does Panzura CloudFS’s global file system architecture differ from Egnyte’s sync-based model?

  Panzura CloudFS uses a single source of truth architecture where all data resides in one authoritative location in cloud object storage. This eliminates version conflicts and synchronization complexities by allowing all users to work on the same dataset in real time. In contrast, Egnyte’s sync-based model replicates files to local caches and devices, creating multiple data copies that can lead to delays and version conflicts as changes propagate between locations.

• Why is Panzura CloudFS more cost-effective for large files than a per-user, sync-based solution like Egnyte?

  Panzura CloudFS’s pay-for-what-you-use structure and global variable-block deduplication make it more cost-effective for managing large files. It stores each unique data block only once, regardless of how many locations access it , resulting in a storage volume reduction of up to 70-80%. In comparison, Egnyte’s sync-based model can create multiple, full copies of a file across different locations, which may lead to redundant storage and higher costs. 

• How do the different file locking approaches of Panzura CloudFS and Egnyte impact real-time collaboration?

  Panzura CloudFS provides enterprise-grade, real-time global file and byte-range locking, which prevents conflicts when multiple users edit the same file simultaneously. Egnyte’s file-level sync approach does not support byte-range locking and may require manual conflict resolution when users work on local cached versions. This architectural difference allows CloudFS to enable true co-authoring by eliminating “collaboration friction.”
  

• How does Panzura CloudFS’s architecture provide superior data resilience compared to Egnyte?

  Panzura CloudFS integrates data protection with immutable snapshots taken as frequently as every 60 seconds, which cannot be deleted by ransomware. This provides a near-zero RPO, ensuring a maximum of 60 seconds of data loss. Egnyte users, in comparison, often report 4-hour snapshot intervals. The AI-powered Threat Control feature in CloudFS also proactively detects and stops attacks, eliminating the need for separate backup and disaster recovery solutions.

• How does the cloud-agnostic model of Panzura CloudFS give customers more control than Egnyte’s managed service?

  The cloud-agnostic approach of Panzura CloudFS allows customers to choose their own cloud object storage and manage their own encryption keys. This provides true data sovereignty and portability, enabling customers to negotiate better rates with hyperscalers and respond quickly to new regulations. Egnyte’s managed service, by contrast, often controls the underlying infrastructure and encryption keys, creating potential vendor lock-in and “sovereignty debt.”