DataCore Swarm vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

DataCore and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. DataCore is ranked #12 with an average rating of 10.0, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.9. DataCore holds a 0.8% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 18.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of DataCore 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 DataCore Swarm compete in the storage solutions category. Red Hat Ceph is perceived as having the upper hand in cost-effectiveness and support quality, while DataCore Swarm is recognized for robust features catering to specific needs.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage is known for its scalability, integration capabilities, and suitability for enterprise deployments requiring flexibility. DataCore Swarm focuses on content lifecycle management, high-performance capacity, and media-rich environment optimization. The key difference is Red Hat's adaptability versus DataCore's media efficiency.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage employs an open-source deployment model demanding technical expertise, with customer service noted for structured enterprise support. DataCore Swarm is noted for a straightforward deployment model and strong media management support, providing tailored customer service for complex media handling.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage is more cost-effective initially, offering favorable ROI for large-scale storage via reduced operational costs. DataCore Swarm, with a higher initial investment, promises ROI through enhanced performance and media-driven benefits. The distinction lies in Red Hat's lower setup costs versus DataCore's long-term performance returns.

To learn more, read our detailed DataCore Swarm vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: June 2025).

Buyer's Guide

DataCore Swarm vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 856,873 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 June 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 DataCore Swarm is 0.8%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 18.5%, down from 22.8% 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

Julien GUILLAUMOU

Chief Technical Officer at Integra Systems

Enhancing backup speed and efficiency with high availability

We use DataCore Swarm essentially for backups, utilizing immutable backups and dynamic archiving from the file server. We also have a project called the Fiservo, which allows us to move the archive and all files from Fiservo It is more rapid than using tape for backups, which was quite slow for…

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 product is scalable and easy to expand."

"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."

"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 this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."

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

"I would rate Pure Storage FlashBlade a ten out of ten."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The first feature is compatibility with the S3 protocol. DataCore SWARM allows you to quickly have an on-premise, robust and scalable environment that is natively compatible with the S3 protocol. The functionalities used are therefore derived from the S3 protocol, notably versioning and therefore the possibility of configuring immutability in governance or compliance mode. The object metada can be enriched with the addition of tags to subsequently enable filtering and searching. Configuring and using DataCore SWARM is simple and flexible. It is very easy to create domains, tenants and buckets for different use cases with various authentications. The cluster architecture also allows replication between different clusters at different configured levels (Cluster / Domains / ...) A web interface for browsing the content of existing buckets allows simple and rapid manipulation of certain objects such as sharing via a link or cropping a video. Finally, the physical architecture of the solution is based on an x86 server and its scale-up or scale-out evolution is very simple by adding disks or servers."

"DataCore Swarm is highly available."

"I find its flexibility valuable."

"The ability for the solution to use any new hardware quickly and without administration is a great thing in the context of hosting."

"With DataCore Swarm, we have transitioned from tape-based backups, which were long, to Swarm, making the process more rapid and efficient."

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

"Stratus allows more reliability than all the other types of computers available."

"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."

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

"Most valuable features include replication and compression."

"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."

"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

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

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

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

"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 want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."

"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."

"The speed could be improved."

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"The main issue currently is the hard installation process."

"The pricing can definitely be better."

"The solution needs simpler architecture."

"The product currently requires a significant number of servers to start. There are also network prerequisites to be met in order to guarantee good security of the architecture, which means that the product is only available to large customers. Besides, the license starts at 100TB. An Appliance version is being developed with an architecture based on containers which will make it possible to offer DataCore SWARM to everyone. The product has been evolving since the acquisition by DataCore, but maintaining and updating the product is not always easy and needs to be improved. For now, we only use DataCore SWARM for a few use cases and therefore a small part of the existing functionalities. With use we will perhaps have more criticism of the product but not for the moment!"

"The main issue currently is the hard installation process."

"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."

"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."

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

"If troubleshooting is needed, the response should be faster."

"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."

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

"When it comes to the capabilities of Red Hat Ceph Storage such as object, block, and file storage, I am not fully satisfied."

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

"The price is a little high."

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

"I feel that the price could always be lowered."

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"The first installation brick is expensive but the upgrades are extremely simple and granular by adding disks or nodes."

"You pay for what you use. For example, if you use one terabyte, you just pay for that one terabyte. But the pricing could always be better"

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

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

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

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

"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."

"There is no cost for software."

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

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

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

16%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

27%

Comms Service Provider

18%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Government

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 for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate. FlashBlade is worth the money due to the experience and per...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?

Its configuration should be easier. There should be easier language for the configuration.

See all answers

What do you like most about DataCore Swarm?

The first feature is compatibility with the S3 protocol. DataCore SWARM allows you to quickly have an on-premise, rob...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for DataCore Swarm?

DataCore Swarm's pricing is reasonable. While the initial step is expensive, ramping up capacity is relatively afford...

See all answers

What needs improvement with DataCore Swarm?

The main issue currently is the hard installation process. Upgrading from CentOS to Rocky is not straightforward eith...

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

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

Dell ECS vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

MinIO vs DataCore Swarm

Compared 26% of the time

Dell ECS vs DataCore Swarm

Compared 13% of the time

Scality RING vs DataCore Swarm

Compared 9% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs DataCore Swarm

Compared 9% of the time

More DataCore Swarm Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 38% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% of the time

Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

May 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

File and Object Storage

May 2025

Download DataCore Swarm product report

Buyer's Guide

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

May 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

Caringo Swarm

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

Swarm provides a platform for data protection, management, organization and search at massive scale. You no longer need to migrate data into disparate solutions for long-term preservation, delivery and analysis. Consolidate all files on Swarm, find the data you are looking for quickly, and reduce total cost of ownership by continuously evolving hardware and optimizing use of your resources.

DataCore

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

iQ Media, NEP, Texas Tech University, Telefónica, City of Austin, Massive Media, Data Deposit Box, Premier Physician Services, Truliant Federal Credit Union

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

DataCore Swarm vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

June 2025

Free Report: DataCore Swarm vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about DataCore Swarm vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: June 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our DataCore Swarm 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.