Arcserve OneXafe vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Arcserve and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Arcserve is ranked #23 with an average rating of 6.0, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 9.3. Arcserve holds a 0.2% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 15.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Arcserve 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 Summary

We performed a comparison between Arcserve OneXafe and Red Hat Ceph Storage based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

Find out in this report how the two File and Object Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.

To learn more, read our detailed Arcserve OneXafe vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Arcserve OneXafe vs. Red Hat Ceph 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 Arcserve OneXafe is 0.2%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 15.3%, down from 21.3% 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	15.3%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	5.3%
Arcserve OneXafe	0.2%
Other	79.2%

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

Sergio Itikawa

Software Solutions Architect at SPEData

Has improved data reliability while requiring better pricing and localized support

The most valuable features of Arcserve OneXafe are improving persistent data, which I believe is very important. I use other products too, not only Arcserve OneXafe; we use TrueNAS as well. I have utilized Arcserve OneXafe's data deduplication feature. It helps my storage efficiency significantly. The product satisfaction with this product helps with storage efficiency. Regarding Arcserve OneXafe's immutable object storage helping against ransomware, the call was not clear, and I had difficulty listening to what was discussed. Arcserve OneXafe improves precision of data. I have used Arcserve OneXafe's continuous data protection. This is beneficial for operational continuity because we use it constantly. I have no objections to Arcserve OneXafe technology; I think that is very good.

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 is pretty quick."

"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."

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

"It is very easy to use, and it is very fast."

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

"What I like best about Pure Storage FlashBlade is its object storage functionality, plus it has fast underlying hardware. Pure Storage FlashBlade is also very stable. I find its stability one of its valuable features."

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The most valuable features of Arcserve OneXafe are improving persistent data, which I believe is very important, and I have utilized Arcserve OneXafe's data deduplication feature, which helps my storage efficiency significantly."

"The simplicity and the ability to perform small backups are the most effective features for data protection in Arcserve OneXafe."

"The community support is very good."

"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."

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

"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."

"High reliability with commodity hardware."

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

"Data redundancy is a key feature, since it can survive failures (disks/servers). We didn’t lose our data or have a service interruption during server/disk failures."

"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"The technical support needs to improve. When we open a case, it is auto assigned to a support tech person. Nine out of ten times, we get an email right back saying that person is off until tomorrow. I cannot handle that. They just did this over the weekend to us, too. I had to call our rep and have them do something about it."

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

"The speed could be improved."

"An area for improvement in Pure Storage FlashBlade is its price. It could be reduced. The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade also needs improvement. It used to be good, with more experienced engineers. Nowadays, it isn't, and it takes longer for support to solve problems."

"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."

"In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready."

"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 better integration."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"Arcserve OneXafe is not used in many cases in the market that we work in."

"The price is not the best; it is too high. It's not the best solution in terms of price, although the solution itself is good."

"The price is not the best; it is too high."

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

"Routing around slow hardware."

"I have encountered issues with stability when replication factor was not 3, which is the default and recommended value. Go below 3 and problems will arise."

"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."

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

"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."

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

"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

"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."

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

"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."

"Support is a separate line item. Support is a different cost, but whatever your support is now, that's what you're going to pay forever. If your support's $100 today, six years from now it's $100. It doesn't fluctuate unless you upgrade it, or change it, etc."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

Information not available

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

"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."

"We never used the paid support."

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

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

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

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

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

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

No data available

Computer Software Company

15%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

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?

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

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Arcserve OneXafe?

Regarding pricing and setup cost, my client said all the options are very expensive. Price is always a key point for ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Arcserve OneXafe?

There are areas that could be improved. We use other technologies for persistent data as well. So we depend on the op...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Arcserve OneXafe?

The main use case for this product is that I use a backup repository for persistent data. I use it exclusively for 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 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

Dell ObjectScale vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

Veeam Data Platform vs Arcserve OneXafe

Compared 69% of the time

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs Arcserve OneXafe

Compared 31% of the time

More Arcserve OneXafe Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 48% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 2% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

January 2026

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Backup and Recovery

January 2026

Download Arcserve OneXafe product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

January 2026

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

StorageCraft OneBlox

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

Arcserve OneXafe is designed for data protection, encompassing backups, disaster recovery, and storage management. It ensures data accessibility with scalable options and robust performance, simplifying deployment and management.

The primary function of Arcserve OneXafe is to protect data through comprehensive backup and disaster recovery solutions. It offers seamless scalability, efficiently accommodating growing storage needs. Deduplication and compression features optimize storage costs, while its integration with cloud environments provides versatility. Users highlight its user-friendly deployment and management capabilities, although there's a noted need for improved backup and restore speed, better cloud service integration, and more streamlined setup processes. Additionally, better technical support and enhanced monitoring and reporting features are desired.

What are the key features of Arcserve OneXafe?

Deduplication and Compression: Efficient storage management by reducing data redundancy.
Scalability: Seamlessly expand storage capacity to meet increasing demands.
Data Recovery: Reliable recovery functions ensure data protection against failures.
Cloud Integration: Versatile compatibility with cloud environments.
Ease of Deployment: Simplified setup and management processes.

What benefits should users look for?

Storage Cost Optimization: Deduplication and compression features reduce storage expenses.
Reliable Data Accessibility: Scalable options ensure data remains accessible.
Efficient Management: User-friendly deployment and management streamline operations.
Versatility: Integration with cloud environments caters to diverse storage needs.

In industries like healthcare, finance, and education, Arcserve OneXafe is implemented to safeguard critical data. Hospitals rely on it for patient data protection, financial institutions use it to secure transactional records, and educational entities implement it to protect academic and administrative information. Regardless of the industry, it supports essential data protection and management needs.

Arcserve

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

Sonic, Amazon, Kawasaki, Callaway, Drake University, Mazda, Thales, California Highway Patrol, Guggenheim, Bruker, NASA, Oregon.gov

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Arcserve OneXafe vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

December 2025

Free Report: Arcserve OneXafe vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about Arcserve OneXafe vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Arcserve OneXafe 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.