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

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #10 with an average rating of 7.9, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.8. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 0.9% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 17.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 82% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Amazon EFS are competing products in the storage solutions category, each with distinct advantages. Amazon EFS seems to have the upper hand due to its scalability and seamless integration with AWS services.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers a unified and scalable storage platform with strong data redundancy, supporting block, object, and file storage with CephFS. Amazon EFS features automatic scaling, shared file storage capabilities across multiple AWS cloud instances, and seamless integration with other AWS services, which enhances its utility within cloud ecosystems.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could improve in its complexity, requiring specialized technical knowledge for setup and management. It also relies partially on third-party support. Amazon EFS might be improved by lowering initial cloud service costs and enhancing its native support options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Amazon EFS offers simplicity in deployment with a cloud-native structure for rapid scaling and easy integration within AWS. It benefits from AWS's robust customer support. Red Hat Ceph Storage provides deployment flexibility for on-premise solutions but demands more technical expertise to manage effectively, with strong customer service often depending on third-party support.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage has lower setup costs and offers favorable ROI for on-premise environments needing extensive data management, with controllable long-term expenses. Amazon EFS, while having potentially higher initial costs due to cloud service charges, provides value through scalability and minimal maintenance, potentially offering higher ROI due to efficiency and reduced operational load in cloud-oriented infrastructures.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

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

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,370 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 September 2025, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.7%, down from 6.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is 0.9%, up from 0.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 17.8%, down from 22.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

File and Object Storage Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Red Hat Ceph Storage	17.8%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	5.7%
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)	0.9%
Other	75.6%

File and Object Storage

Featured Reviews

Eric Black

Solutions Architect at Recovery Point Systems

The ability to leverage multi-tenancy along with immutability is a huge benefit for us

The only thing I feel FlashBlade is missing is the SOS API. If it had SOS API, that would put it well over the top. Veeam Backup specifically has started to streamline their API, and they are doing that with SOS API. They have optimized it. Any of the S3 devices out there that support this SOS API can have far more API calls at once. On our side, that translates to better restoration. With SOS API, it can leverage far more restorations at a single given time or read from the device in simple terms. That results in maximizing the output and throughput from the device itself.

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

Rifat Rahman

Infrastructure Architect & CEO at Tirzok Private Limited

Offers reliable performance and availability for large deployments

I would like to see improvements in Red Hat Ceph Storage not because I necessarily think it needs improvement, but because I generally prefer to do things manually rather than following the containerization part. Current deployments are based on containers, but I deploy manually with my scripts and controls. If there are no Kubernetes-like requirements, I often prefer to deploy a whole manual process. I don't ask for improvements in the deployment model because Red Hat has its own philosophy about making things, but it's my personal choice that I prefer things manually. Some features are available only in the containerization part, so if those are also available in manual deployment, that will help.

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 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 solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."

"We have seen a reduction in the total cost of ownership by around 20%."

"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."

"The solution provides many controllers."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is performance."

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The initial setup was straightforward."

"Elastic File Systems allow me to share data, provision, and manage capacity and performance in AWS."

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

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

"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is secure as it is used under VPC."

"The first valuable thing is it is scalable."

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

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) pros

"I would definitely recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. It is a complete solution for cloud-native storage needs."

"What I found most valuable from Red Hat Ceph Storage is integration because if you are talking about a solution that consists purely of Red Hat products, this is where integration benefits come in. In particular, Red Hat Ceph Storage becomes a single solution for managing the entire environment in terms of the container or the infrastructure, or the worker nodes because it all comes from a single plug."

"I really like that Red Hat Ceph Storage can be used as a total solution without any storage area network components."

"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."

"The setup is very easy, deserving a ten out of ten."

"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."

"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."

"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

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

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

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

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

"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 more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."

"The speed could be improved."

"I would like to see more deduplication."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

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

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

"The deployment is definitely not an easy process."

"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."

"What should be improved in Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is the costing, as it should be reduced, but that depends on Amazon."

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

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

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

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) cons

"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."

"I have not identified any drawbacks, however, the response to public platform inquiries could be faster."

"In the deployment step, we need to create some config files to add Ceph functions in OpenStack modules (Nova, Cinder, Glance). It would be useful to have a tool that validates the format of the data in those files, before generating a deploy with failures."

"This product uses a lot of CPU and network bandwidth. It needs some deduplication features and to use delta for rebalancing."

"While the documentation for Ceph Storage is helpful, it could be improved."

"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."

"It took me a long time to get the storage drivers for the communication with Kubernetes up and running. The documentation could improve it is lacking information. I'm not sure if this is a Ceph problem or if Ceph should address this, but it was something I ran into. Additionally, there is a performance issue I am having that I am looking into, but overall I am satisfied with the performance."

"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete. You will meet all kind of bugs and errors trying to install the system for the first time. It requires very experienced personnel to support and keep the system in working condition, and install all necessary packets."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is a little high."

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

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

"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."

"The pricing for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate."

"I understand that it is competitively priced compared to other brands."

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

"The product is very expensive."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

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

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

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

"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."

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

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

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

"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."

"If you can afford a product like Red Hat Ceph Storage then go for it. If you cannot, then you need to test Ceph and get your hands dirty."

"There is no cost for software."

"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."

"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription as a bundle."

"We never used the paid support."

"The price of this product isn't high."

"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pricing and cost advice

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

867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Healthcare Company

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	20

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	7

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	13
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	15

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?

The pricing of Pure Storage FlashBlade is expensive compared to other products I used from other companies in the pas...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?

I believe there is not much improvement needed because they have everything we need, but the interface is a little bi...

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

How does Red Hat Ceph Storage compare with MiniO?

Red Hat Ceph does well in simplifying storage integration by replacing the need for numerous storage solutions. This ...

See all answers

What do you like most about Red Hat Ceph Storage?

The high availability of the solution is important to us.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Red Hat Ceph Storage?

Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about th...

See all answers

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 20% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 8% of the time

Dell ObjectScale 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 70% of the time

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

Compared 6% of the time

Google Cloud Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 5% of the time

Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 4% of the time

Amazon S3 Glacier vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 4% of the time

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 40% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 5% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 5% of the time

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

August 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

September 2025

Download Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

August 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

Ceph

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)

Red Hat Ceph Storage is an enterprise open source platform that provides unified software-defined storage on standard, economical servers and disks. With block, object, and file storage combined into one platform, Red Hat Ceph Storage efficiently and automatically manages all your data.

Red Hat

Sample Customers

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

Arcesium, Atlassian, Seeking Alpha, Zend

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

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

July 2025

Free Report: Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph 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.