Recommend a data-storage approach that satisfies all of the following: supports REST access, hosts 20 independent tables with varying sizes and usage patterns, automatically replicates data to a secondary Azure region, and minimizes cost. Which option meets these requirements?

Azure Storage Tables provide a cost-effective solution for storing structured NoSQL data, supporting REST access and accommodating varying table sizes and usage patterns. Configuring the storage account with Geo-Redundant Storage (GRS) automatically replicates data to a secondary Azure region for disaster recovery, fulfilling the replication requirement. GRS is generally more cost-effective than RA-GRS if read access to the secondary region is not a primary requirement. Azure SQL Database, whether standalone or in an elastic pool, is designed for relational data and would be significantly more expensive and complex for 20 independent tables that don't require relational features. While active geo-replication provides high availability, the underlying SQL Database cost would not minimize expenses for this scenario.