Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs IBM Cloud Object Storage comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and IBM 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 IBM is ranked #12 with an average rating of 9.3. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 1.1% mindshare in FaOS, compared to IBM’s 1.1% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 87% of IBM users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

IBM Cloud Object Storage and Amazon EFS are both cloud storage solutions. Amazon EFS appears to have the upper hand due to its feature-rich integration with AWS services.

Features:IBM Cloud Object Storage offers competitive pricing, notable scalability, and substantial data durability, ideal for large-scale unstructured data storage. Amazon EFS provides high availability, automatic scaling for consistent file access, and seamless integration with AWS services, enhancing its overall appeal for applications needing low latency.

Room for Improvement:IBM Cloud Object Storage could enhance its integration with wider cloud environments and upgrade data access speeds. Improving UI design for easier navigation would be beneficial. Additionally, expanding analytics capacities would broaden its utility. Amazon EFS might work on simplifying its learning curve and optimizing cost-effectiveness for smaller operations. Strengthening data migration tools and cross-region replication features could also enhance its offering.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service:IBM Cloud Object Storage provides a straightforward deployment process with flexible storage configurations, backed by robust customer support. While Amazon EFS benefits from its tight integration into AWS, its deployment can be complex due to various configuration options. Amazon's extensive support network aids in addressing these complexities, contributing to a smoother deployment journey for users familiar with AWS infrastructure.

Pricing and ROI:IBM Cloud Object Storage is generally more cost-effective, presenting strong ROI with competitive pricing and efficient storage management. Meanwhile, Amazon EFS involves higher initial costs but justifies its pricing through extensive feature sets and operational efficiencies offered by its AWS ecosystem integration, making its ROI attractive when considering scalability and long-term benefits.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. IBM Cloud Object Storage Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. IBM Cloud Object Storage

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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 January 2026, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.3%, down from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is 1.1%, up from 0.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Cloud Object Storage is 1.1%, down from 1.2% 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	5.3%
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)	1.1%
IBM Cloud Object Storage	1.1%
Other	92.5%

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

MuhammadAzhar Khan

Senior DevOps Engineer at Alibaba Group

Auto-scaling capabilities enhance file management while reducing downtime

The most valuable feature of Amazon EFS is its auto-scaling capability. It's really easy to configure EFS by just creating it and running a command to directly configure it with my servers. It supports unlimited use, and charges are applied based on the file usage at the end of the month. The solution offers reduced downtime and increased durability through its auto-scaling features.

Read full review

reviewer2384904

Account Technology Specialist at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enables seamless data replication and supports comprehensive data analytics workflows

The capability to replicate data in different locations is valuable since it enables customers to have a cluster over various sites. Also, important is the capability to provide RESTful APIs for custom connectors. In terms of security, I advise customers to rotate access keys to enhance protection. Additionally, scalability is effortless as you can add nodes or expand the license.

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

"It's very easy-to-use."

"It helps simplify our storage, because the user interface is very simple and the installation is easy."

"It uses the same platform for connectivity so integration is seamless."

"The solution provides many controllers."

"Using this solution has made our backups more reliable."

"Pure Storage FlashBlade's scalability is one of the most valuable features, and importantly, it always works, allowing for seamless upgrades."

"FlashBlade offers low latency, high throughput, and seamless scalability."

"The initial setup was straightforward. If you know how to plug in power and network you're pretty much qualified. They were on site to configure the network, the box to fit into our network architecture. Other than that, we self-managed from there."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The initial setup was straightforward."

"We can run code and deploy it whenever we want."

"The solution's technical support is good."

"The platform is highly scalable."

"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."

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

"Amazon EFS is extremely stable, as it is managed by AWS."

"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."

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) pros

"Overall, I rate IBM Cloud Object Storage a ten out of ten."

"IBM Cloud Object Storage integrates well."

"IBM has the most number of additional services, this is the main advantage."

"The capability to replicate data in different locations is valuable since it enables customers to have a cluster over various sites."

"The integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments."

"One of Cloud Object Storage's best features is infinite capacity. This is one of the main advantages if you don't want to use your own storage. You also have the ability to write only, write once, and read many. It's like tape storage but software-based. This feature is essential for financial institutions that require that kind of protection if you write backup or data there."

"The standout feature of IBM Cloud Object Storage is its top-notch security, making it ideal for sensitive applications like mobile financial transactions."

"The most valuable feature I like is when you connect it via CLI plug-in...It is a stable solution."

Cons

"I would like to see better integration."

"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."

"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."

"The feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services."

"It's on the expensive side, as expected for a niche product."

"Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration."

"Its configuration should be easier."

"I would like to see more deduplication."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"Around 80 percent of the features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are available on Linux and not in Windows, making it a major drawback of the product."

"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."

"The user activity needs to be more connected."

"The platform's connectivity could be improved to be more comparable to S3 buckets, which offer better API availability."

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

"The main challenge with EFS is its cost, which is slightly higher compared to EBS or S3."

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

"The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) cons

"Sometimes technical support lacks a comprehensive understanding of the entire solution, only focusing on the product they support."

"One area where IBM Cloud Object Storage could potentially improve is in modernizing its underlying codebase."

"IBM has limited cloud storage."

"If I had to choose one area, it would be making the consoles more intuitive would be helpful. Sometimes, they can be a little complicated if you're not familiar with them."

"The performance could improve in IBM Cloud Object Storage. The throughput or objects per second can have degradation."

"Room for improvement depends on customer needs. Some customers prefer pure Object Storage using the S3 protocol, while others use a gateway in front of the storage grid to enable CIFS or NFS."

"IBM Cloud storage is not cheap, but it could be."

"One improvement could be incorporating a feature similar to Dropbox's version history. This would allow users to track modifications made to files over time, which is particularly important for maintaining a record of changes. While the free version might not include this feature, it could be included in the paid version to provide added value to clients. Additionally, having a version history feature that allows users to access modifications made to files over the past three months could be beneficial."

More IBM Cloud Object Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's a costly solution, but Pure Storage FlashBlade doesn't require additional licenses. All of the software is combined into one bundle."

"The price could be cheaper."

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

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

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

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

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

"The product is very expensive."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

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

"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."

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

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

"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."

"You have the option of a monthly or yearly license. Most customers choose the monthly option. I understand what you would like to say. IBM also lets you choose among four types of Cloud Object Storage. The difference is usage, performance, etc. Of course, high-performance storage is more expensive, while low-performance storage is for cold data, and it's really cheap."

"Pricing is not cheap."

"Like most cloud providers, IBM likely charges based on storage capacity, typically per gigabyte or terabyte. Their pricing is competitive when compared to AWS or Microsoft."

"IBM Cloud is cheaper than AWS. If you want to scale your cloud infrastructure, it can be bought at almost the same price."

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

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

12%

Computer Software Company

12%

Manufacturing Company

12%

Comms Service Provider

Financial Services Firm

25%

Computer Software Company

16%

Government

University

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	3
Midsize Enterprise	2
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 IBM Cloud Object Storage?

The integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Cloud Object Storage?

In general, Object Storage should be a cheaper solution.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Cloud Object Storage?

The interface can feel clunky and outdated compared to AWS S3 or Azure Blob Storage. While scalable, latency can be...

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 9% 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 83% 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

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 2% of the time

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Competitors

MinIO vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 26% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 19% of the time

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 14% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 8% of the time

IBM Spectrum Scale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 8% of the time

More IBM Cloud Object Storage 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

IBM Cloud Object Storage

January 2026

Download IBM Cloud Object Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

Cleversafe

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)

IBM Cloud Object Storage is a web-scale platform that stores unstructured data - from petabyte to exabyte - with reliability, security, availability and disaster recovery without replication.

IBM

Sample Customers

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

Arcesium, Atlassian, Seeking Alpha, Zend

Bitly, Dreamstime, Prime Research

Buyer's Guide

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. IBM Cloud Object Storage

December 2025

Free Report: Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. IBM Cloud Object Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. IBM Cloud Object Storage and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. IBM Cloud Object Storage 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.