Most household storage advice compares a NAS to Google Drive on price and stops there. That comparison is not very useful, because at this scale the money is close enough that it should not decide anything. What decides it is two structural facts: consumer cloud plans have a ceiling that arrives sooner than people expect, and a NAS has a failure mode that arrives without warning. Everything else follows from those.
The thing nobody reads on the pricing page
Microsoft 365 Family advertises 6 TB. It is not 6 TB. It is 1 TB each for up to six people, in six separate accounts, and that capacity does not pool. If you are a household of two with a 3 TB photo and video library, the plan says 6 TB and you can use 1 TB of it. There is no consumer path to raise a single OneDrive account past that line. Microsoft also spent 2026 simplifying its lineup rather than expanding it, retiring the standalone OneDrive for Business plans that people used to buy as a workaround.
Google pools. One subscription covers up to six people drawing from a shared allowance, and the top consumer tier sits around 5 TB after Google restructured its plans in 2026 and folded AI features into the storage tiers. There are larger tiers above that, historically 10, 20, and 30 TB, but they are billed monthly, published pricing for them moved during the 2026 replatforming, and the cost per terabyte climbs steeply rather than falling.
The practical ceiling. For a household, consumer cloud runs comfortably to about 2 TB, works to about 5 TB, and becomes financially irrational above roughly 8 TB. A four bay NAS starts at around 20 TB usable and goes up from there by swapping drives. If your library is already past 5 TB and growing, the comparison is effectively over before it starts.
Capability, side by side
What each system can actually do
| Capability | OneDrive | Google Drive | NAS |
|---|
| Capacity pools across household | No | Yes | Yes |
| Practical upper limit | 1 TB per person | ~5 TB, more at steep cost | 20 TB+, expandable |
| Real time co-editing | Excellent | Excellent | None |
| Phone photo auto backup | Yes | Yes | Yes, via vendor app, less polished |
| Share a link with anyone | One click | One click | Possible, needs port forward or relay |
| Version history | 30 days, consumer | 30 days or 100 versions | Snapshots, hourly, retention you set |
| Max single file | 250 GB | Large, varies by type | Filesystem limit, effectively none |
| Native protocol access (SMB, NFS) | No | No | Yes |
| Works with no internet | Cached files only | Cached files only | Fully, on the LAN |
| Video editing directly off the store | Impractical | Impractical | Yes over 2.5GbE |
| Time Machine or full disk image target | No | No | Yes |
| Runs other services (media server, Docker, cameras) | No | No | Yes |
| Zero maintenance | Yes | Yes | No |
| Survives a house fire | Yes | Yes | No |
Read that table as two different products rather than two grades of the same product. The cloud services are collaboration platforms that happen to store files. A NAS is a filesystem on your network that happens to have a web interface. Almost every argument between the two comes from treating them as interchangeable.
Where the cloud wins outright
Cloud, uncontested
- Sharing with people outside your household. A link works everywhere, forever, with no firewall involved.
- Phone photo backup that keeps working when you replace the phone, change networks, or travel.
- Document collaboration. Two people in one file at once is not something a NAS does.
- Geographic durability. The fire, the flood, the burglary are all covered by default.
- Nobody has to be the administrator. For most households this is the entire argument.
NAS, uncontested
- Anything above 5 TB. The cost curve and the account ceilings both break here.
- Working directly off the store: video timelines, photo catalogs, virtual machines.
- Whole machine backups and Time Machine targets, which consumer cloud simply does not accept.
- Snapshot retention you control, measured in months, not a fixed 30 days.
- Second jobs: media server, camera recorder, home automation, personal git.
The risk register
This is the part worth slowing down for, because the two systems do not fail in comparable ways. One fails loudly and locally. The other fails silently and completely.
Failure modes and what they actually cost you
| Failure | Where | Blast radius | Your mitigation |
|---|
| Account suspended or locked | Cloud | Total, immediate, and it takes email and photos with it | Keep an independent copy. There is no other answer. |
| Drive failure | NAS | None if parity holds, total during a second failure mid rebuild | RAID 6 above 4 drives, keep a cold spare |
| Fire, flood, theft | NAS | Total | Offsite copy, cloud archive or a second box elsewhere |
| Deletion propagates through sync | Both | Total for the synced set | Snapshots or versioning, and a copy that is not synced |
| Ransomware on a household PC | Both | Everything the PC can write to | Immutable snapshots, or offline copy |
| Vendor changes plans or pricing | Cloud | Forced migration on their schedule | Know your exit path before you need it |
| Silent corruption over years | Both | Individual files, discovered too late | Checksumming filesystem, periodic scrub |
| You stop paying | Cloud | Read only, then deletion after a grace period | Calendar reminder, and an export you can restore from |
| Nobody maintains it for two years | NAS | Unpatched, unmonitored, degrading quietly | Email alerts on, automatic updates on |
The asymmetry. Every NAS failure has a warning sign and a recovery path you control. Account suspension has neither. It is rare, but it is the only failure in this table where a household can lose twenty years of photos in an afternoon with no appeal, no support line that helps, and no technical recourse. Cloud storage is more reliable than a NAS and simultaneously carries a worse tail risk. Both statements are true.
Sync is not backup
This trips up more households than any hardware fault. OneDrive and Google Drive both sync, which means they faithfully reproduce whatever happens locally, including the bad things. Delete a folder, it deletes everywhere. Encrypt your files with ransomware, the encrypted versions upload. Have a family member reorganize the shared drive, it is reorganized for everyone.
Version history is the safety net, and on consumer tiers it is roughly a 30 day window. That is enough for a mistake you notice this week. It is not enough for a corruption you discover next spring, and restoring thousands of files one version at a time is not a workflow anyone finishes.
A NAS has the same exposure through its own sync tools, but it also has something the cloud plans do not offer at consumer tier: filesystem snapshots. Hourly, read only, retained for as long as you want, and cheap because they only store what changed. That is the single strongest technical argument for owning the box.
Bandwidth is the constraint nobody budgets for
Cloud storage performance at home is limited by your upload speed, which is usually the slowest number in your house. The math is unforgiving.
hours = GB × 8 ÷ (Mbps × 3.6)
Seed 4 TB at 25 Mbps upload → ~355 hours (15 days continuous)
Restore 4 TB at 200 Mbps down → ~44 hours
Copy 4 TB over gigabit LAN → ~10 hours
Copy 4 TB over 2.5GbE LAN → ~4 hours
Two conclusions follow. First, the initial upload to a cloud service is a project, not a step, and it is the reason many people abandon a migration halfway. Second, a NAS is roughly an order of magnitude faster for bulk work, which is why editing video or culling a RAW shoot works locally and does not work over the internet.
Cost, briefly
Cost is the least interesting axis at household scale, and the numbers show why. Five year totals, illustrative, in USD. Verify current rates before buying, because both vendors restructured their consumer plans during 2026.
Five year cost, household scale
| Option | Usable | 5 yr total | Per TB/yr |
|---|
| Microsoft 365 Family | 6 TB, split | $650 | $22 |
| Google, 2 TB tier | 2 TB pooled | $500 | $50 |
| Google, 5 TB tier | 5 TB pooled | $1,250 | $50 |
| Google, 10 TB tier | 10 TB pooled | $3,000+ | $60+ |
| NAS, 2 bay mirrored | 8 TB | $875 | $22 |
| NAS, 4 bay RAID 5 | 24 TB | $1,700 | $14 |
| NAS + cloud archive copy | 24 TB | $3,620 | $30 |
Below about 2 TB the options are within a rounding error of each other, and you should choose on convenience. Between 2 and 6 TB the NAS pulls ahead but not by enough to justify the maintenance if you do not want it. Above 8 TB the cloud cost curve breaks and the argument ends. Note also that the Microsoft figure only looks that good if you genuinely have six people who each need a full terabyte, which most households do not.
Six questions that decide it
- How big is the library today, and what was it three years ago?Draw the line forward. If it crosses 5 TB inside five years, buy the NAS now rather than migrating under pressure later.
- Is anything in it something you edit rather than store?Video projects, photo catalogs, virtual machines, and code repositories all want local speed. Documents and finished photos do not.
- What is your upload speed?Under 50 Mbps, cloud as a primary store is painful to seed and painful to restore. This is a hard physical constraint, not a preference.
- Who in the house would fix a failed drive?If the honest answer is nobody, a NAS becomes an unmonitored liability within two years. That is a worse outcome than paying more for cloud.
- How much do you share outside the household?Constant sharing pushes hard toward cloud. A NAS can share links, but you are now running a service exposed to the internet, which is its own project.
- Could you tolerate losing access to your account tomorrow?If the honest answer is no, then whatever you choose as primary, you need a second copy somewhere else. This question has the same answer in both directions.
What most households should actually build
The honest recommendation is not one or the other. It is a layered setup where each system does the job it is good at, and the total cost sits near the middle of the table above.
LAYER 1 Cloud, 1 to 2 TB
Documents, current photos, phone backup, anything shared.
Chosen for convenience and for surviving the house.
LAYER 2 NAS, 8 to 24 TB
Media library, archives, machine backups, working files.
Hourly snapshots on. Email alerts on. Drives from two batches.
LAYER 3 Offsite copy of what is irreplaceable
Cloud archive tier, or a second drive at another address.
Not synced. Restore tested once a year.
The key discipline is that layer 3 is not a sync target. If it mirrors layer 2 in real time, it inherits every deletion and every encryption event, and you have paid for a copy of your problem.
The verdict
Choose cloud only
If your library is under 2 TB, mostly documents and phone photos, shared often, and nobody in the house wants a second thing to maintain. Between the two, Google is the better structural fit for a household because storage pools across members. OneDrive is the better fit for an individual already living in Office, where the storage is close to free alongside apps you were buying anyway. The caveat for both: set a calendar reminder to export, and keep one copy that is not in the account.
Choose NAS plus a small cloud plan
If the library is over 4 TB, contains video or RAW, or you want machine backups and a media server. This is the right answer for most people who are reading a comparison article in the first place, because the fact that you are comparing usually means you have already outgrown the easy option. The caveat: budget for the offsite copy from day one, because a NAS without one is a single point of failure holding everything you care about.
Choose cloud only, deliberately, despite the cost
If there is nobody to maintain hardware. This is a legitimate and underrated choice. A well run cloud account beats a neglected NAS every single time, and a NAS that stopped emailing alerts three years ago is not storage, it is a countdown.
The short version. Under 2 TB, use the cloud and stop thinking about it. Over 5 TB, buy the NAS, because the cloud ceiling is real and it arrives fast. In between, decide on temperament rather than arithmetic: whoever would fix the drive is the person who should pick.