AFP vs SMB vs NFS: Which Is the Best Data Transfer Protocol?

File sharing over networks is a common practice today, particularly in enterprise settings and SOHO (Small Office/Home Office) environments. In the earlier days of computing, file sharing involved the use of what was often termed the "SneakerNet," which meant taking a floppy disk or other removable media from one computer to another to transfer files.

Today, things have changed, and there are multiple types of transfer protocols. This post breaks down the most common LAN file-sharing protocols, explains how they work, and provides guidance on selecting the right one for your environment.

File Transfer vs File Sharing

To start, it's helpful to distinguish between file transfer and file sharing.  While there may be some gray area or overlap in how these terms are used, in this post, we'll separate them as follows: 

The term transfer refers to what is commonly called uploading or downloading files. This type of functionality is most often provided by the FTP (File Transfer Protocol) or HTTP (HyperText Transfer Protocol), or variants of these protocols.

Typically, these are used with web browsers, for example, in scenarios where the user is presented with a web page with a link, which, when clicked on, initiates a download of the file to the user's computer. They can also be used for uploads, but this is less common.

There are also a variety of file-sharing methods called "peer-to-peer" (P2P), such as BitTorrent, Kazaa, and Freenet, that require specialized software and/or additional networking protocols to function. These are beyond the scope of this article, which discusses protocols supported by corporate or home networks without such modifications.

The file-sharing protocols we will explore in this article were developed with a focus on LANs (Local Area Networks) in office or campus environments. They have evolved over time and have a long, rich history.

SMB: What is Server Message Block Protocol?

IBM first developed the SMB (Server Message Block) protocol in early 1983. This protocol was designed to provide shared access to server-based files, printers, and serial ports to client nodes running DOS (Microsoft MS-DOS or IBM PC-DOS) on a LAN. At this time, the network was based on NetBIOS Frames (NBF), which were non-routable and only well-suited for small to medium-sized networks.

There was some competition in the file-sharing space at that time, most notably, the product called Novell NetWare. Netware used Netware Control Protocol (NCP) running on IPX/SPX networks.  It had some efficiency benefits and actually evolved and survived as part of the Linux-based Open Enterprise Server (OES) until 2009. However, Netware gradually lost market share to Microsoft as more and more file-sharing features were built into the Microsoft Windows operating system after its Windows for Workgroups product was introduced in 1993.

Modern SMB (currently SMB 3.1.1) supports encryption, signing, Active Directory integration, and a wide range of authentication mechanisms. It’s tightly integrated with Windows Server and widely supported by NAS appliances and Linux systems via Samba, making SMB the protocol most organizations still rely on today.

Because SMB ships with Windows—and Windows dominates the desktop world—it remains the most ubiquitous file sharing protocol in modern networks.

NFS: What is Network File System?

NFS (Network File System) took shape around the same time, but in a very different software culture. Developed by Sun Microsystems for UNIX, NFS was designed to feel lightweight, efficient, and compatible with the open systems movement. It’s long been the go-to for Linux and UNIX environments, especially in development, research, and engineering teams.

NFS was not built to provide printing or shared serial port services, as SMB does, because the UNIX operating system typically already addresses those needs via other mechanisms. Perhaps it is because of its focus on file-sharing services that NFS has some efficiency advantages over SMB. It is consistently superior to SMB for small random reads and writes. 

Over time, NFS has matured—NFSv4 brought stronger authentication, stateful connections, and more robust access control. NFSv4.1 added multipathing and improved fault tolerance, directly addressing gaps in earlier versions.

While SMB tends to shine in Windows-heavy corporate settings, NFS continues to offer fast, predictable performance for Linux-based workloads.

AFP: What is Apple Filing Protocol?

AFP, originally “AppleTalk Filing Protocol,” grew out of Apple’s push to create a plug-and-play networking experience for early Macintosh computers. At the time, AppleTalk made networking feel almost effortless, especially compared to the more hands-on Windows and UNIX environments. AFP fit neatly into that ecosystem by offering simple, high-performing file sharing for creative and design teams.

But Apple’s networking stack evolved, and starting with macOS 10.9 Mavericks, Apple switched to SMB as the default protocol. AFP still exists, but today it’s considered legacy. It's mainly found on older NAS systems, older macOS installations, or environments that haven’t fully transitioned to SMB.

How to Choose the Right Data Transfer Protocol

So, how does one choose the best protocol?  It really depends on several criteria. Let's look at several scenarios.

Scenario 1: Large Corporate Headquarters

In this scenario, the company has an on-premise data center, a relatively fast LAN, and mostly Microsoft Windows servers and personal computers. The decision is fairly straightforward, at least for the bulk of the user community. Microsoft Windows Servers, Active Directory (now called Microsoft Entra), authentication and access security, and, most likely, some NAS filers integrated with AD are the perfect home for SMBs.

Protocol You Should Use: SMB

There may be questions about which version(s) of SMB to support, but it is definitely the primary protocol of choice here.  If there are small groups of, say, Mac or Linux users, it is up to the IT organization or upper management to decide whether or not to support NFS or AFP for them. The decision might be based more on security risk than performance or ease of use. While it may be possible to support all three protocols, greater complexity is likely to result in more calls to the support line and more work for the IT department.

Scenario 2: Small Website Design Firm

In this case, there is a strong chance that many Mac users are in this environment. Years ago, AFP would have been the default here. Today, macOS uses (and prefers) SMB, making it the most practical option for mixed Apple/Windows shops. AFP may still be available on older macOS or NAS systems, but recent versions of macOS have largely deprecated it (and in some cases, disable it entirely), making SMB the more future-proof and maintainable option.

Protocols You Should Use: Likely SMB, maybe Apple File Protocol

While some older environments may still run Apple File Protocol, a modern design firm is far more likely to standardize on SMB. It simplifies support, works across macOS and Windows, and eliminates the need to maintain parallel file-sharing systems. 

In most cases, Mac users will perform just as well on SMB shares, while Windows-only roles—such as accounting or administrative teams—depend on SMB to access their applications. Apple File Protocol may still linger for legacy workflows, but SMB is the most practical and sustainable choice for both groups today.

Scenario 3: Linux Software Development Group

NFS has been part of the UNIX/Linux world for many years and is the most familiar protocol to those who work primarily with these operating systems. It performs well, and the security mechanisms are familiar to Linux administrators.

Protocol You Should Use: NFS

Teams working heavily with Linux often reach for NFS because it feels native to their workflows. NFS delivers solid performance with Linux workloads and integrates well with Linux permissions and automation tools. But if even a handful of users rely on Windows or macOS, SMB is still needed for compatibility.

What About the Internet?

SMB, NFS, and Apple File Protocol were never designed to run directly over the public Internet. Even though modern versions of SMB and NFS include encryption options, neither protocol was designed to be exposed directly to the public Internet. Their security models assume a trusted LAN rather than an open network. Many ISPs also block or throttle these protocols to prevent misuse or accidental exposure.

If users need to access shared files remotely, safer alternatives exist. HTTPS-based file transfer tools, SFTP, and cloud platforms like OneDrive, Google Drive, or SharePoint offer secure, Internet-ready ways to move data without exposing internal file shares.

Most organizations connect remote sites using private WAN links or VPNs. A VPN creates an encrypted tunnel over the Internet, allowing SMB or NFS traffic to travel securely as if the user were inside the office. Performance still depends on the underlying connection (speed, latency, and reliability), but modern broadband and fiber links often make remote file access feel nearly identical to on-site use.

Final Thoughts

SMB, NFS, and AFP were built for different platforms and eras, but they all still appear across modern networks—sometimes intentionally, sometimes as legacy holdovers. Today, SMB and NFS handle nearly all corporate file-sharing needs, while AFP survives mainly for compatibility.

Choosing the right protocol comes down to knowing your environment and understanding how each option handles authentication, performance, and interoperability. As operating systems continue to converge on SMB, the trend toward simpler, more unified file sharing is likely to continue.