Cloudian HyperStore vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Cloudian and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Cloudian is ranked #11 with an average rating of 9.5, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.8. Cloudian holds a 3.1% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 17.8% mindshare. Additionally, 85% of Cloudian 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

Cloudian HyperStore and Red Hat Ceph Storage compete in the data storage market. Cloudian leads with superior user satisfaction in pricing and customer service, while Red Hat Ceph attracts users with more advanced features despite higher costs.

Features: Cloudian HyperStore offers scalability, S3 compatibility, and easy management. Red Hat Ceph Storage provides integration capabilities, flexibility with various environments, and high-performance storage options.

Room for Improvement: Cloudian HyperStore could enhance integration capabilities, complexity management, and performance in diverse environments. Red Hat Ceph Storage might benefit from simplifying deployment, enhancing user support, and improving cost-effectiveness for smaller organizations.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Cloudian HyperStore features a straightforward deployment process and responsive customer service. Red Hat Ceph Storage requires more technical expertise for deployment but is backed by comprehensive documentation and support resources.

Pricing and ROI: Cloudian HyperStore is cost-effective with favorable ROI for budget-conscious organizations. Red Hat Ceph Storage, despite higher initial costs, offers strong long-term ROI with flexible licensing and performance benefits.

To learn more, read our detailed Cloudian HyperStore vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Cloudian HyperStore vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,497 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 Cloudian HyperStore is 3.1%, up from 2.9% 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%
Cloudian HyperStore	3.1%
Other	73.4%

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

Kiran Rajanna

Senior Solutions Architect and Cloud Security Consultant at Cgi Deutschland KG

A seamless solution offering data encryption, quality service, and security encryption

Cloudian HyperStore needs to incorporate AI and predictive analysis. It would be helpful if the solution could analyze and predict how to manage data better. The end users should not have access to protected documents. They should be able to drop the documents. The capacity management dashboard can be better. We also want two-factor authentication using Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator as MFA. Hence, the user would access the console not just by logging in with a password and username but with third-party applications as well.

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

"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."

"I would rate this solution an eight plus. It has has good flexibility and stability, it's easy to manage and the response time is good."

"The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensures efficient replication and helps maintain our data centers' uptime."

"The most valuable feature is Safe Mode."

"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."

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The tool has S3 capability. Its scalability is excellent. From a security and encryption perspective, the solution supports SSL encryption. It is a seamless solution offering data encryption, quality service, and security encryption."

"The most valuable features are its scalability and Amazon S3 compatibility because we can move back and forth with a hybrid cloud."

"Considering a customer's need for a cost-effective solution, Cloudian HyperStore fits well for data protection scenarios."

"The cost was the main reason we chose to use this solution."

"Cloudian HyperStore is one hundred percent stable."

"It is very durable and that is particularly important."

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

"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."

"Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage."

"High reliability with commodity hardware."

"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."

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

"Ceph has simplified my storage integration. I no longer need two or three storage systems, as Ceph can support all my storage needs. I no longer need OpenStack Swift for REST object storage access, I no longer need NFS or GlusterFS for filesystem sharing, and most importantly, I no longer need LVM or DRBD for my virtual machines in OpenStack."

"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."

"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."

"We initially encountered challenges with the assembly process due to issues with the documentation required during setup, an area where Pure Storage needs improvement."

"I would also like to see better support for CIFS workloads."

"I would like to see better integration."

"The speed could be improved."

"We haven't been able to use much of the cloud area of Pure Storage. We have a storage server and it would be better if it could integrate with other cloud features of this solution."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"Cloudian HyperStore needs to incorporate AI and predictive analysis. It would be helpful if the solution could analyze and predict how to manage data better. The end users should not have access to protected documents. They should be able to drop the documents. The capacity management dashboard can be better. We also want two-factor authentication using Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator as MFA. Hence, the user would access the console not just by logging in with a password and username but with third-party applications as well."

"It is a cloud-based environment and at times, it is not very simple to use."

"As it is an S3 solution with the same protocol as the one we have with AWS, having better integration with AWS will be beneficial."

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

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

"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."

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

"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."

"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."

"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."

"Some documentation is very hard to find."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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 customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

"I rate the tool's pricing a seven to eight out of ten."

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

"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 for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"Our fees are approximately half a dollar per gigabyte."

"The solution is cheap."

"There is no cost for software."

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

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

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

"We never used the paid support."

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

"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."

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

867,497 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

18%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

Retailer

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	3
Midsize Enterprise	1
Large Enterprise	4

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 Cloudian HyperStore?

One potential improvement would be offering an open-source or community edition of the product. This would allow team...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Cloudian HyperStore?

Our primary use case for Cloudian HyperStore is as a reliable, scalable solution for backup and long-term archive of ...

See all answers

What advice do you have for others considering Cloudian HyperStore?

My advice for others looking into using Cloudian HyperStore is to definitely get a quote to see if it makes sense for...

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 5% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

MinIO vs Cloudian HyperStore

Compared 28% of the time

Scality RING vs Cloudian HyperStore

Compared 23% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Cloudian HyperStore

Compared 11% of the time

Qumulo vs Cloudian HyperStore

Compared 5% of the time

More Cloudian HyperStore Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 39% 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

File and Object Storage

September 2025

Download Cloudian HyperStore product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

August 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

HyperStore, Cloudian HyperStore Object Storage, HyperStore Object Storage

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

Cloudian HyperStore lets you start small and grow to hundreds of petabytes on-premises simply by adding nodes. Leverage the proven interoperability of the industry’s only 100% native S3 API.

Cloudian

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

NTT Communications, Casale, Kumo

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Cloudian HyperStore vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 2025

Free Report: Cloudian HyperStore vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about Cloudian HyperStore vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,497 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Cloudian HyperStore 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.