Amazon FSx vs Quantum ActiveScale comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Quantum are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #15 with an average rating of 8.3, while Quantum is ranked #24. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 0.8% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Quantum’s 0.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of Quantum users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Amazon FSx and Quantum ActiveScale are competing in the cloud storage solutions category. Amazon FSx has the upper hand due to its integration capabilities and flexibility, whereas Quantum ActiveScale stands out for large-scale unstructured data needs.

Features: Amazon FSx provides scalable file storage, integration with AWS services, and a variety of deployment models to accommodate different protocols. Quantum ActiveScale offers extreme data durability, petabyte-scale storage, and energy-efficient operations, suitable for archival and cold storage.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Amazon FSx is easy to deploy within the AWS ecosystem, benefiting from automated setup and extensive support options. Quantum ActiveScale, while offering comprehensive service, may require more initial setup time but provides robust support during setup and operation.

Pricing and ROI: Amazon FSx employs a pay-as-you-go pricing model, facilitating cost-effectiveness across varied usage patterns, with ROI increasing due to its integration with AWS environments. Quantum ActiveScale might incur higher initial costs, but it offers substantial ROI through efficient long-term storage solutions.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon FSx vs. Quantum ActiveScale Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Amazon FSx vs. Quantum ActiveScale

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,484 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 August 2025, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.8%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Amazon FSx is 0.8%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Quantum ActiveScale is 0.5%, down from 0.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

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

Shared storage capabilities provide enterprise value with good reliability

Amazon FSx is more costly compared to other storage solutions like EBS or EFS. The auto-scaling feature should be improved, as it currently includes downtime. I need to manually increase the storage, which is not ideal. Integrating FSx with Windows Server is challenging; it's a long process involving Active Directory (AD) setup and synchronization.

Read full review

Frank Lai

Architecture Department at Supermicro Computer

Good performance and reliable but the setup is complex

We would like to see a self-sufficient installation. Nowadays it's open-source, but the installation is still tied to the vendor, which means it is unlikely that it is going to scale. I want them to tap into the broader community. It is really emerging, they have a year over year, 50% annual growth. With a 10-year-old company, it will certainly bring a lot of interest, and will certainly make it more successful, if they tap into that growing customer base. They have to make themselves relevant to the industry. The industry is totally geared to the Cloud, DevOps, and geared for agility. The software with the appliance in my set is already outdated, and it is not that it cannot sell, but it has to be tapping into the emerging and growing sectors to continue with the customers and businesses. This is what the requirement is, to improve their technology. Which means that they have to make themselves relevant to the industry.

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

"The performance of FlashBlade is excellent. It does not necessarily leverage the SOS API that some of the newer products leverage, but I found its speed pretty much on par and comparable. It is fast, and it does what it is supposed to do."

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

"It performs well and it is also very fast."

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

"The tool's most valuable features are data warehousing, speedy recovery, and analytics. Its latest release is cost-effective."

"The main feature I have found to be product replication."

"I like its size. It is smaller than the other competitors. We can plug in many blades, and we can have data up to one terabyte."

"The most valuable features include the ease of implementation, ease of use and the speed that you can do backup and recovery on."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"I rate the stability of Amazon FSx ten out of ten."

"FSx operates as an independent service, not tied to any server, which eliminates dependencies between applications for storage."

"On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Amazon FSx a ten."

"We used it for disaster recovery perspective behind a number of resources, like batch services and RDS."

"The shared storage capability is highly valuable."

"The technology is stable which is good."

"Workflow is easy to manage and maintain."

Cons

"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."

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

"The speed could be improved."

"There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket."

"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."

"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."

"It would be nice if you could store file-based in the same box with the same technology."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"I've been facing a challenge when doing a failover from FSx side. AWS console does not refresh within a half hour."

"A direct FTP feature would be beneficial instead of relying on transmission services."

"From my experience, there are areas in Amazon FSx where more performance is needed, as they will be looking for higher IOPS."

"Amazon FSx is more costly compared to other storage solutions like EBS or EFS."

"Lacks some ability to integrate with different systems."

"We would like to see a self-sufficient installation."

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

"The price is a little high."

"The product is very expensive."

"The price could be cheaper."

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

"It is within reason for what you get. From what we have found comparing it to other vendors, it is in the same range as others. Given the choice, we would definitely redeploy it based on the cost."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"The lowest price I have paid is $370 or $380 per month, while the highest can exceed $3,000 per month."

"Quantum ActiveScale is open-source."

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

865,484 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Manufacturing Company

14%

Financial Services Firm

14%

Computer Software Company

10%

Retailer

10%

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

13%

University

Educational Organization

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

No data available

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

What needs improvement with Amazon FSx?

From my experience, there are areas in Amazon FSx where more performance is needed, as they will be looking for highe...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Amazon FSx?

Our customers mainly use Amazon FSx for high-performance computing. Our customers are mainly in the Life Science and ...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Amazon FSx?

There is an ongoing project where my customers are exploring the FSx solution, but not yet for AI-driven projects; th...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 19% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 9% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Amazon FSx

Compared 22% of the time

Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon FSx

Compared 14% of the time

Amazon EBS (Elastic Block Store) vs Amazon FSx

Compared 12% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Amazon FSx

Compared 11% of the time

Qumulo vs Amazon FSx

Compared 7% of the time

More Amazon FSx Competitors

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Quantum ActiveScale

Compared 43% of the time

Dell ECS vs Quantum ActiveScale

Compared 30% of the time

Qumulo vs Quantum ActiveScale

Compared 26% of the time

More Quantum ActiveScale Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

August 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Cloud Storage

August 2025

Download Amazon FSx product report

Buyer's Guide

File and Object Storage

August 2025

Download Quantum ActiveScale product report

Also Known As

No data available

Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, Amazon FSx for Lustre

ActiveScale, Quantum ActiveScale Object Storage, ActiveScale Object Storage

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 FSx makes it easy and cost effective to launch and run popular file systems. With Amazon FSx, you can leverage the rich feature sets and fast performance of widely-used open source and commercially-licensed file systems, while avoiding time-consuming administrative tasks like hardware provisioning, software configuration, patching, and backups. It provides cost-efficient capacity and high levels of reliability, and it integrates with other AWS services so that you can manage and use the file systems in cloud-native ways.

Amazon FSx provides you with two file systems to choose from: Amazon FSx for Windows File Server for enterprise workloads and Amazon FSx for Lustre for high-performance workloads.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)

StorNext File System
Increase productivity and reduce time to critical business insights with StorNext® File System. StorNext architecture delivers the necessary performance to get your business moving forward.

Quantum

Sample Customers

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

Neiman Marcus, T Mobile, Docxellent, Matrix, Lyell

Information Not Available

Buyer's Guide

Amazon FSx vs. Quantum ActiveScale

July 2025

Free Report: Amazon FSx vs. Quantum ActiveScale

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon FSx vs. Quantum ActiveScale and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,484 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Amazon FSx vs. Quantum ActiveScale 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.