standtech Backups are not redundancy for your content, instead, it is a copy of data stored in a different place (preferably a different DC)
You can also create the backup of the backup, and so on, for additional redundancy of the backups, but I think it is a waste. (this is definitely on own opinion only)
The "backup" word (in itself) is a way of restoring original content. It implies that the data is already sitting on the Original server and the backup server (if one of the 2 fails, you fix it and continue backing up)
s3 or other cloud providers offer some type of raid and data cloned on probably multiple places, but do not think it is bulletproof. They fail, too, and sometimes data sitting there can also get corrupted.
I am not promoting anything or going against S3 or other providers, but I do consider it a waste of time to develop tools for backing up data when we all know enhance for s3 backups are very far away compared to jet-backup backups on the same cloud providers.
You should look and learn each how they work, and then you would probably be able to assess and figure out how far one from the other is 🙂
read this: https://docs.jetbackup.com/manual/whm/Destinations/destinationsOverview.html
Enhance to s3 is not the same as jetbackup to s3
i do not want to make this post too long. Still, in simple words, a backup that is compressed and archived is a waste of bandwidth and storage, as it requires Local storage in the production server for the archive to be created and compressed, then sent to S3 or another cloud if your file created is 100 GB then every night you will be moving 100 GB with enhance backup to S3 (by now you should have figured it out how bad this is!)
The missing term here is Incremental. That would be possible and implemented, and then S3 or any other destination would make perfect sense in achieving your desired backup redundancy.