Storj Labs Inc.

United States · www.storj.io · 11 vendors

Storj Labs Inc. operates a decentralized cloud storage network that allows users to store data securely and privately across a global network of independent storage nodes. It leverages blockchain technology to provide secure, private, and performant cloud storage that is more affordable than traditional providers.

Resilience scores

Disruption prediction

Storj Labs Inc. has an estimated 27% probability of disruption in the next 6 months.

10 of Storj Labs Inc.'s 11 vendors monitored for disruptions.

Technology vendors

Services catalogue

1 service in catalogue across 1 category; runs on 11 sub-vendors.

Insights

Last updated 2026-08-14 · revision 2

11 direct vendors, 199 subvendors

Direct vendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Subvendors by controlling owner country (sample)

Migration Readiness: 9/10

Assessed by AI based on technology stack characteristics (cloud-native vs legacy, containerization, microservices), regulatory environment, data residency requirements, financial stability, and vendor lock-in risks. The score ranges from 0-10, where higher scores indicate better readiness for technology migration.

Storj Labs Inc. exhibits very high migration readiness, largely due to its exceptionally modern, cloud-native, and portable technology stack. The extensive use of Go, Kubernetes, Docker, gRPC, and Protocol Buffers signifies an architecture designed for flexibility and ease of deployment across diverse cloud environments. A critical enabler for migration is the company's S3-compatible API and 'Amazon S3 (API compatibility layer)', which allows for seamless integration with or migration to other S3-compatible object storage solutions, including major hyperscalers. Furthermore, the 'Storj Object Mount (powered by cunoFS)' provides a POSIX-compatible file system interface, reducing the need for application refactoring during platform shifts. The containerized nature of their applications (Kubernetes, Docker) inherently simplifies deployment and migration. Regarding vendor lock-in, the data states 'Total Vendors: 0'. If this is accurate, it implies minimal to no vendor lock-in, which is a significant advantage for migration. However, this contradicts other provided data points such as 'Total Services: 15' from 'Vendor HQ Countries: United States, Australia, Denmark' and 'Vendor Geographic Diversity: 3 unique countries'. If these points imply underlying vendor relationships, the geographic diversity is moderate, but the 'Vendor Lock-in Risk' is explicitly stated as 'Unknown'. Despite this ambiguity, the highly portable and open-standard-compatible tech stack (S3, POSIX) inherently reduces dependency on specific proprietary technologies or vendors, mitigating potential lock-in risks. Key challenges or unknowns for migration include the absence of financial data to assess the capacity to fund a migration, and a lack of information on regulatory environment and data residency requirements, which could introduce unforeseen complexities.

Compliance

9 in-scope frameworks identified; showing 3.

GDPR (source) — Partially Compliant

Storj explicitly acknowledges GDPR applicability in its Privacy Policy, identifies legal bases for processing EEA personal data, provides a GDPR Data Subject Rights Webform, and references Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs) for international data transfers. However, Storj is a US-headquartered company with a globally distributed storage network, meaning EU personal data may traverse or be stored on nodes outside the EEA. The distributed/decentralized architecture introduces inherent complexity in demonstrating full GDPR compliance (e.g., data minimization, purpose limitation, and ensuring all node operators comply). No formal third-party GDPR audit or DPO appointment is publicly disclosed, which elevates residual risk. Fines under GDPR can reach €20M or 4% of global annual turnover, making this a medium-risk area given the partial but not fully evidenced compliance posture.

Evidence: https://www.storj.io/legal/privacy-policy, https://www.storj.io/object-storage/compliance, https://www.storj.io/object-storage/compliance/gdpr, https://support.storj.io/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=360000793912

MPA — Assessment Required

Storj references MPA compliance on its compliance page as a supported framework, targeting its Media & Entertainment customer segment. MPA Content Security Best Practices are voluntary guidelines for vendors handling premium content. Risk is low because MPA compliance is not a legal regulatory requirement but rather an industry best practice standard. Non-compliance does not result in regulatory fines but may limit Storj's ability to serve major studio customers. The distributed storage architecture requires careful assessment against MPA's physical and logical security requirements.

Evidence: https://www.storj.io/object-storage/compliance, https://www.storj.io/solutions/media-and-entertainment

HIPAA (source) — Partially Compliant

Storj explicitly markets HIPAA-compliant cloud storage as a product feature and references healthcare customers (e.g., Cloudwave, which works with 300+ hospitals). As a cloud storage provider handling potential Protected Health Information (PHI) on behalf of healthcare customers, Storj would be classified as a Business Associate under HIPAA, requiring a signed Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with covered entities. Storj's 'Storj Select' product is hosted in SOC2 Type 2 facilities and offers the technical controls (encryption, access management, immutability) needed for HIPAA compliance. However, HIPAA compliance for a cloud provider is heavily dependent on contractual arrangements (BAAs) and customer configuration, and no formal HIPAA audit or third-party attestation is publicly disclosed. Risk is medium because the technical architecture supports HIPAA requirements but formal attestation is absent.

Evidence: https://www.storj.io/object-storage/compliance, https://www.storj.io/object-storage/compliance/hipaa, https://www.storj.io/customer/cloudwave

Financials

Three-year financials

Financial Resilience Score: 3/10

Storj Labs is a small, private, venture-backed U.S. technology company that filed voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy on 26 July 2026 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Case No. 5:26-bk-00512) to resolve legacy liabilities. The company raised only approximately US$35.4 million in cumulative venture capital over 11 years, a modest amount relative to hyperscale competitors, suggesting limited historical runway and likely sustained operating losses that eroded equity. The company was acquired by Inveniam Capital Partners in October 2025 (price undisclosed), and parent Inveniam continues to support operations through the restructuring. While Storj has differentiated decentralized cloud storage technology, a marquee customer base (CloudWave, Vivint, Caltech, TrueNAS, International Rescue Committee), and expansion into GPU cloud compute, the Chapter 11 filing indicates the balance sheet was insufficient to support legacy obligations. No public financial statements exist as Storj is a private Delaware corporation with no SEC filings.

Key strengths: Differentiated decentralized S3-compatible object storage technology with ~80% cost advantage vs hyperscalers, Blue-chip customer references (CloudWave, Vivint, Caltech, TrueNAS, International Rescue Committee), Strategic parent Inveniam Capital Partners supporting business through Chapter 11, STORJ ERC-20 utility token provides alternative non-equity funding lever, Product diversification into GPU cloud compute and Object Mount file-mount software, Veeam-Ready Object certification and compatibility with major backup ecosystems

Risk factors: In Chapter 11 bankruptcy as of July 2026 (Case 5:26-bk-00512, N.D. W.Va.), Modest total capital raised of only ~$35.4M over 11 years, Intense competition from AWS S3, Google Cloud, Azure Blob, Backblaze B2, Wasabi, Cloudflare R2, Customer confidence and employee attrition risk during restructuring, Regulatory/crypto exposure through STORJ token payments to node operators, No public financial disclosure hampers independent credit assessment, Likely history of operating losses and eroded equity

Signed-in users can see whether their own company is exposed to this vendor's disruption, plus the full sub-vendor list and country breakdowns, every in-scope compliance framework plus gaps and next steps, and alerts when any of it changes.

View the full interactive report