Amazon FSx 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 #15 with an average rating of 8.3, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.8. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 1.0% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 17.3% 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 FSx compete in the object storage and file system domain. Amazon FSx is generally seen as having the upper hand due to its robust features and overall functionality, making it attractive for businesses looking for advanced capabilities.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers scalable storage, strong data replication, and open-source adaptability, which make it suitable for customized deployments. Amazon FSx provides cloud-native capabilities with seamless integration with AWS services, high-performance file systems, and straightforward, feature-rich integration appealing to businesses seeking comprehensive cloud solutions.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage emphasizes flexibility with its deployment model, supported by comprehensive support for tailored installations in various environments. Amazon FSx simplifies deployment with streamlined processes and extensive AWS ecosystem integration, though it may require specialized AWS knowledge. Ceph's adaptability benefits specialized needs, while FSx’s convenience is ideal for large-scale, cloud-focused operations.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage is favored for its cost-effective setup and customizable pricing models, benefitting budgets that require scalability. Amazon FSx, while involving higher initial costs, offers significant ROI through its superior cloud features and performance. The decision depends on whether upfront cost savings are preferred over potential long-term benefits through advanced features.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 872,706 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 October 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 FSx is 1.0%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 17.3%, down from 22.3% 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	17.3%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	5.7%
Amazon FSx	1.0%
Other	76.0%

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

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

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

"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."

"The most valuable features of FlashBlade include its replication capabilities, reports, and easy allocation. Everything is user-friendly."

"The most valuable features are the Metro clustering, and disaster recovery."

"Speed and ease of use are the two most valuable features."

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

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

"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."

"Pure Storage FlashBlade is user-friendly. It's replication feature is great because it has active replication and active DR. That's the beauty of the product. It's a perfect solution for block storage."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"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."

"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."

"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."

"Replicated and erasure coded pools have allowed for multiple copies to be kept, easy scale-out of additional nodes, and easy replacement of failed hard drives. The solution continues working even when there are errors."

"High reliability with commodity hardware."

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

"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."

"The solution is pretty stable."

"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."

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

"I would like to have Snapshots and Snapmail in the next release. People who came from a NetApp background, especially expect these features."

"Commvault has mainly driven the Analytics, providing data and reports. However, the product has room for improvement, especially regarding storage analytics. Upgrading firmware has caused issues, requiring feature disabling to revert to traditional backups. The firmware upgrades sometimes affect Commvault backups."

"I would like to see better integration."

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

"In terms of scalability, it doesn't expand out quite as robustly as some of the others, but it covers 90% of the market in what it does."

"I would like to see more VM-Aware features in the next release of this solution."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"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."

"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."

"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."

"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."

"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."

"The licensing cost is excessively high. This is a significant issue from my perspective."

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

"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."

"Routing around slow hardware."

"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

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

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

"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 price is a little high."

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

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."

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

"There is no cost for software."

"We never used the paid support."

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

"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."

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

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

"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."

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

872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Manufacturing Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Retailer

Computer Software Company

18%

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	21

No data available

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

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

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 19% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 7% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 5% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Amazon FSx

Compared 21% of the time

Amazon EBS (Elastic Block Store) vs Amazon FSx

Compared 11% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Amazon FSx

Compared 11% of the time

Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon FSx

Compared 11% of the time

More Amazon FSx Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 41% 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

October 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Cloud Storage

October 2025

Download Amazon FSx product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

October 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

Amazon FSx for Windows File Server, Amazon FSx for Lustre

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 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)

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

Neiman Marcus, T Mobile, Docxellent, Matrix, Lyell

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

September 2025

Free Report: Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon FSx vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

872,706 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Amazon FSx 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.