Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs Hitachi Content Platform comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Hitachi Vantara are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #10 with an average rating of 8.0, while Hitachi Vantara is ranked #16 with an average rating of 8.0. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 1.1% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Hitachi Vantara’s 1.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of Hitachi Vantara users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Amazon EFS and Hitachi Content Platform are competing storage solutions in the cloud infrastructure category. Amazon EFS has the upper hand with its attractive pricing and customer support, while Hitachi Content Platform offers superior features justifying its cost.

Features: Amazon EFS offers scalable storage solutions with automatic scaling based on demand, ensuring ease of integration with EC2 instances. Its elasticity and flexible pricing are significant advantages. It provides a stable, fast NFS file storage, easily mountable with no size limitations for packages. Hitachi Content Platform features extensive data management, including immutability, compliance features, and data protection elements. It supports deduplication, encryption, version controlling, and efficient management of metadata and bit-rot prevention.

Room for Improvement: Amazon EFS could enhance its user interface and streamline system design for a more straightforward configuration process. While the integration with AWS services is robust, expanding compatibility with non-AWS services could be beneficial. Improving customization options for varied deployment scenarios would be advantageous. Hitachi Content Platform could improve ease of integration for less technical environments and reduce setup complexity. Reducing dependence on additional licenses for local cloud storage capabilities would add value. Enhancing the GUI for smoother user experience and reducing the web address complexity used in accessing stored data could also improve its usability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Amazon EFS offers seamless deployment within AWS infrastructures, paired with comprehensive customer support services, facilitating smooth operation. Hitachi Content Platform requires a more complex setup due to its customizable nature but compensates with dedicated support for navigating intricate configurations and maintaining complex environments.

Pricing and ROI: Amazon EFS utilizes a pay-as-you-go billing model, minimizing upfront costs and promising potential for high ROI due to its scalability. Specific pricing details include billing based on storage used. In contrast, Hitachi Content Platform demands higher initial investment but offers superior long-term ROI potential because of its comprehensive feature offerings, which cater particularly well to enterprises with intricate data needs.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Hitachi Content Platform Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Hitachi Content Platform

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,665 peers since 2012

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Categories and Ranking

Pure Storage FlashBlade

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.5%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is 1.1%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Hitachi Content Platform is 1.5%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

File and Object Storage Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Pure Storage FlashBlade	5.5%
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)	1.1%
Hitachi Content Platform	1.5%
Other	91.9%

File and Object Storage

Featured Reviews

MikaelHellström

IT Manager at Regin Dalarna

Has handled backup storage needs reliably and supports seamless upgrades

In environments requiring high throughput and low latency, Pure Storage FlashBlade provides high throughput and normal latency, but we do not have any application that requires low latency right now, so the latency of three to five milliseconds is considered kind of high. Pure Storage FlashBlade's ability to integrate with enterprise applications is not important for us, as we only want to present an S3 bucket for our backup, which we have done, and it works very fast. We use the Purity software's data reduction techniques; we have a backup software that compresses everything before sending it to the S3 bucket, achieving a data reduction of 1.1 to one. I would recommend Pure Storage FlashBlade to other companies because it's a very fast and scalable solution for anyone who needs it. On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution an 8.

Read full review

Amaratunga Arachchige Vimukthi Amaratunga

Regional Manager at Aspire Lifestyles

Security features impress while response times need improvement

We use cloud storage security, which is a virus scanner for their infrastructure, as a new addition. Other than that, it focuses on serverless features, such as Lambda and Aurora SQL server databases. CSS cloud storage security, which is offered by AWS, is integrated into our system. It functions as a virus scanner that monitors whenever any incoming file arrives. The AWS service is excellent security-wise, and I have seen some other features besides security, such as automatic scaling that helped us significantly. Regarding integration, it provides us with the benefit that our data is kept within our account only.

Read full review

Mir Gulzar Ahmed

IT Manager at Synergy Computers

Integrates well with existing systems but technical support for the platform needs improvement

While deployment is simple, it's not as simple as StorageGRID. The architecture is entirely different, even though the end product uses the same protocols. The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. Deployment isn't as centralized either. Although I've deployed Hitachi Content myself in our production head office for the VM team, even though it's simple, it wasn't completely straightforward. They still required my help with the initial configuration environment setup. So, it's not just simple; there are some tricky aspects. The environment is tricky, but if you understand it, configuration can be done quickly.

Read full review

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

Pros

"Among its most appealing features are its ease of handling and minimal maintenance requirements."

"We have integrated it with VMware. The integration process is pretty good. Especially with VMware, it helps with the capacity of it."

"The initial setup is pretty quick."

"The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensures efficient replication and helps maintain our data centers' uptime."

"The product is scalable and easy to expand."

"The snapshots, replication, and the ability to have immutable blades are the most valuable features. You're putting data snapshots out in those blades, and they cannot be touched. Its performance is great."

"It has also helped to simplify storage for us in the way that it's easy to manage. Their automatic monitoring really helps when things break or are about to break. They see a problem coming and alert us even before our own system does."

"The most valuable feature is Safe Mode."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."

"The automatic scaling functionality has helped manage fluctuating workloads because when we have 10 gigs of data and a customer needs to put even 10 times the data, no action is required as it will grow automatically."

"There are huge money savings, as we can save more than half of our costs."

"We haven't seen any downtime or challenges when using the services."

"Amazon EFS offers the flexibility of scaling as needed without requiring pre-provisioned storage."

"The solution's technical support is good."

"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."

"Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface."

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) pros

"The main selling point is its compatibility with different environments. It functions like an on-prem Google Drive or Dropbox built on top of the object storage."

"The product provides the fastest technology."

"Feature-wise, it has a lot of features. The most valuable features include de-duplication, encryption, version controlling, support, and tamper-proof data."

"The features that I have found most valuable are their retention logs. The other thing I have found most valuable is the way they handle the BHEA. Basically the DNS and everything is managed by itself. It is seamless to the users."

"Hitachi is a big company, so it's a very strong product."

"We are using Content Platform for data migration, and it integrates with our HNS platform. This is good because we can integrate it with our existing HNS and SAP solutions. The GUI is also user-friendly. It doesn't take much time to do anything. If we know the architecture and the steps, we can do what we need with a few clicks."

"The Hitachi Content Platform is a stable and reliable solution."

"Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging."

Cons

"The Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us."

"File storage needs a lot of improvement. Mainframe connectivity also needs improvement because it requires additional components to be integrated with Pure Storage FlashBlade. If you want to keep your backup data, then this becomes an even more expensive solution because Pure Storage FlashBlade will not be able to meet your backup needs."

"I would like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabytes."

"I have not seen ROI."

"To improve FlashBlade, some analysts suggest enhancing its handling of relational database management systems and SQL queries."

"It usually comes down to just what you hit and the value you're getting when you spend the money and license the products. I would always go, "If you want to make things better, lower your price and make your licensing simpler." There's always an opportunity around that."

"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."

"Its configuration should be easier."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."

"It could be better in connecting with Windows Server instances."

"A notable limitation of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is that it does not support Windows."

"EFS could be improved by including a one-click setup."

"The user activity needs to be more connected."

"Their response was not prompt, and it took them a while to figure out solutions. While the time to respond was good, the time to resolve was not optimal, as it took more than a week."

"There are challenges related to AWS, such as ensuring proper security measures with IMS code and encryption."

"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) cons

"This product's ability to track logs for access still needs to be improved."

"They could improve compatibility and offer a more user-friendly GUI."

"At present, it is complicated to use the CLI command."

"The only thing is that it should be more cost effective."

"Hitachi Content Platform is a complicated solution. You need to put several pieces of the hardware together in order to achieve the capacity or the performance needed."

"There is room for improvement in the capacity for integration with other platforms."

"Two things that can be improved are pricing and configuration. Mostly the pricing is an issue. And if I were to add anything, I would say more integration with backup solutions such as Veeam Backup."

"They should improve the user interface. It's a little bit complex. It does not have a self-learning method. You need to know how to use it before you touch the system. The user interface is not self-explanatory."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I feel that the price could always be lowered."

"I rate the tool's pricing a seven to eight out of ten."

"The price of this solution could be made more affordable."

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

"I have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."

"The pricing is relatively expensive due to the FlashBlade technology. However, for companies needing quick and reliable data access, the cost is justified."

"Pure Storage FlashBlade is a hardware appliance, and it's very expensive if you compare its price with other solutions. You can get the same features and benefits from its competitor, VAST Data, but for half the price of Pure Storage FlashBlade."

"In my opinion, we have paid the right price for the product. I don't think that it is too much or too little."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage."

"The main challenge with EFS is its cost, which is slightly higher compared to EBS or S3. For one GB or ten GB of data, S3 is much cheaper. EFS could cost around $30 to $50 per month for similar usage."

"I would rate the pricing 7 out of 10."

"The product's price depends on the services and the size and capacity at which it is used in a business environment."

"The product charges are based on the amount of data stored."

"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) offers a pay-as-you-go model, so whenever you use its services, you need to pay."

"The solution's price is mid-ranged."

"The price of the Hitachi Content Platform is very high."

"Hitachi is more expensive than StorageGRID."

"Pricing is comparable to other solutions in the market."

"I think the ROI for this solution is very good because the pricing for it is in between other solutions."

"The pricing could be better."

"Overall, it's costly."

"The product’s cost is average."

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Government

Manufacturing Company

12%

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

21%

Financial Services Firm

18%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	8

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	4
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	4

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Pure Storage FlashBlade?

The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power out...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage FlashBlade?

Regarding pricing, it is okay; we needed exactly this in size, and the price was a lot lower than competitors, making...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?

In my opinion, one way Pure Storage FlashBlade can be improved is by having more compatibility between the FlashArray...

See all answers

Which file storage system is better - Amazon EFS (elastic file storage) or Azure File Storage?

Amazon EFS is easy to set up: you can use the AWS management console, API, or command-line. Amazon EFS can grow to pe...

See all answers

What do you like most about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?

The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?

We don't need to purchase it; we are just using it and paying Amazon as per the utilization. We make direct payments ...

See all answers

What do you like most about Hitachi Content Platform?

Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Hitachi Content Platform?

In comparison to competitors like Huawei, which can use all storage protocols in the same platform, Hitachi Content P...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Hitachi Content Platform?

Mainly, from my project, Hitachi Content Platform is used for archiving. The customer is in banking, so they need to ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 18% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 9% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 8% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 7% of the time

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

Microsoft Azure File Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 85% of the time

Google Cloud Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 2% of the time

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 2% of the time

Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 2% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 1% of the time

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Competitors

NetApp StorageGRID vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 19% of the time

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 13% of the time

MinIO vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 12% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 12% of the time

VAST Data vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 7% of the time

More Hitachi Content Platform Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

January 2026

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

January 2026

Download Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) product report

Buyer's Guide

Hitachi Content Platform

January 2026

Download Hitachi Content Platform product report

Also Known As

No data available

HCP, Hitachi Vantara Content Platform, Hitachi Vantara HCP

Overview

FlashBlade is the industry’s most advanced scale-out storage for unstructured data, powered by a modern, massively parallel architecture to consolidate complex data silos (like backup appliances and data lakes) and accelerate tomorrow’s discoveries and insights.

Pure Storage

Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) provides simple, scalable file storage for use with Amazon EC2 instances in the AWS Cloud. Amazon EFS is easy to use and offers a simple interface that allows you to create and configure file systems quickly and easily. With Amazon EFS, storage capacity is elastic, growing and shrinking automatically as you add and remove files, so your applications have the storage they need, when they need it.

When mounted to Amazon EC2 instances, an Amazon EFS file system provides a standard file system interface and file system access semantics, allowing you to seamlessly integrate Amazon EFS with your existing applications and tools. Multiple Amazon EC2 instances can access an Amazon EFS file system at the same time, allowing Amazon EFS to provide a common data source for workloads and applications running on more than one Amazon EC2 instance.

It’s designed for high availability and durability, and provides performance for a broad spectrum of workloads and applications, including Big Data and analytics, media processing workflows, content management, web serving, and home directories.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

Hitachi Content Platform is an object storage solution that enables IT organizations and cloud service providers to store, share, sync, protect, preserve, analyze and retrieve file data from a single system. It is more efficient, easier to use, and capable of handling much more data than traditional file storage solutions. HCP automates day-to-day IT operations like data protection and readily evolves to changes in scale, scope, applications, storage, server and cloud technologies over the life of data. In IT environements where data grows quickly or must live for years, decades or even indefinitely, these capabilities are invaluable.

Hitachi Vantara

Sample Customers

ServiceNow, Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport, Dominos, Man AHL

Arcesium, Atlassian, Seeking Alpha, Zend

Rabobank, Xinhua News Agency, Kremsm'ller Industrieanlagenbau KG, KSC Commercial Internet, AIS Group, Shanghai Interactive Television Co. Ltd (SiTV), China Telecom, Spin Master

Buyer's Guide

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Hitachi Content Platform

December 2025

Free Report: Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Hitachi Content Platform

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Hitachi Content Platform and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,665 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Hitachi Content Platform report.

See our list of best File and Object Storage vendors.

We monitor all File and Object Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.