Hitachi Content Platform vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Hitachi Vantara and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Hitachi Vantara is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.0, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.8. Hitachi Vantara holds a 1.6% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 17.8% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Hitachi Vantara 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 Hitachi Content Platform compete in the object storage solutions category. Hitachi Content Platform appears to have the upper hand due to its advanced data management and governance features.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers scalable data storage, flexible integration across platforms, and support for diverse infrastructure. Hitachi Content Platform provides advanced data management, strong governance capabilities, and enhanced control and security over data.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could improve its advanced data governance features, interface usability, and initial setup process. Hitachi Content Platform may benefit from more competitive pricing, streamlined integration processes, and enhanced scalability options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage provides a flexible deployment model with extensive support resources for smooth integration. Hitachi Content Platform offers a structured deployment process with strong customer service, appealing to businesses seeking reliable assistance.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage is praised for competitive initial costs and favorable ROI, making it attractive for budget-conscious buyers. Hitachi Content Platform may have higher upfront costs but delivers significant ROI through its advanced features and long-term benefits.

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

Buyer's Guide

Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,676 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 Hitachi Content Platform is 1.6%, down from 1.7% 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%
Hitachi Content Platform	1.6%
Other	74.9%

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

Mir Gulzar Ahmed

IT Manager at Synergy Computers

Integrates well with existing systems but technical support for the platform needs improvement

While deployment is simple, it's not as simple as StorageGRID. The architecture is entirely different, even though the end product uses the same protocols. The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. Deployment isn't as centralized either. Although I've deployed Hitachi Content myself in our production head office for the VM team, even though it's simple, it wasn't completely straightforward. They still required my help with the initial configuration environment setup. So, it's not just simple; there are some tricky aspects. The environment is tricky, but if you understand it, configuration can be done quickly.

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

"Among its most appealing features are its ease of handling and minimal maintenance requirements."

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

"The initial setup is pretty quick."

"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."

"It has also helped to simplify storage for us in the way that it's easy to manage. Their automatic monitoring really helps when things break or are about to break. They see a problem coming and alert us even before our own system does."

"The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."

"The solution provides many controllers."

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The product provides the fastest technology."

"Feature-wise, it has a lot of features. The most valuable features include de-duplication, encryption, version controlling, support, and tamper-proof data."

"As an architect, I like the management features that come with Hitachi Content Platform because it makes things easy."

"Hitachi is a big company, so it's a very strong product."

"The way that they handle the DR is very good because when there is a failover, it is seamless to the users."

"The platform helps in efficient data management with the ease of server provisioning."

"The features that I have found most valuable are their retention logs. The other thing I have found most valuable is the way they handle the BHEA. Basically the DNS and everything is managed by itself. It is seamless to the users."

"One of the most hidden valuable features is ensuring that you don't have bit rot, so it will go and check every single object that's stored on the system, then ensure that if there's a problem, it'll be repaired from either a local copy or remote copy, depending upon your configuration."

Cons

"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."

"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."

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

"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."

"I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."

"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."

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

"It's on the expensive side, as expected for a niche product."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. So it can be more user-friendly."

"They should improve the user interface. It's a little bit complex. It does not have a self-learning method. You need to know how to use it before you touch the system. The user interface is not self-explanatory."

"There is room for improvement in the capacity for integration with other platforms."

"In terms of the customer support, I can say it's a mixed reaction depending on the country."

"Hitachi Content Platform is a complicated solution. You need to put several pieces of the hardware together in order to achieve the capacity or the performance needed."

"When you want to replace a disk, we need to start the maintenance from the S nodes. We have to automate maintenance so any onsite engineer can replace it after that, but we don't need to do this on VSP platforms. An engineer can come in and replace that specific disk. If also we could do that on Hitachi Content Platform, it would be great for us."

"Although they claim to provide NFS, the actual implementation requires an additional gateway, which makes it a costly solution."

"Two things that can be improved are pricing and configuration. Mostly the pricing is an issue. And if I were to add anything, I would say more integration with backup solutions such as Veeam Backup."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"The product is very expensive."

"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."

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

"The price could be cheaper."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"The pricing could be better."

"I think the ROI for this solution is very good because the pricing for it is in between other solutions."

"Overall, it's costly."

"The product’s cost is average."

"The price of the Hitachi Content Platform is very high."

"Hitachi is more expensive than StorageGRID."

"Pricing is comparable to other solutions in the market."

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

"We never used the paid support."

"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."

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

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

"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."

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

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

867,676 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

24%

Financial Services Firm

21%

Government

13%

Educational Organization

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	4
Midsize Enterprise	6
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 do you like most about Hitachi Content Platform?

Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Hitachi Content Platform?

In comparison to competitors like Huawei, which can use all storage protocols in the same platform, Hitachi Content P...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Hitachi Content Platform?

Mainly, from my project, Hitachi Content Platform is used for archiving. The customer is in banking, so they need to ...

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 Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 27% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 23% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 17% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 9% of the time

More Hitachi Content Platform 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

Hitachi Content Platform

September 2025

Download Hitachi Content Platform product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

August 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

HCP, Hitachi Vantara Content Platform, Hitachi Vantara HCP

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

Hitachi Content Platform is an object storage solution that enables IT organizations and cloud service providers to store, share, sync, protect, preserve, analyze and retrieve file data from a single system. It is more efficient, easier to use, and capable of handling much more data than traditional file storage solutions. HCP automates day-to-day IT operations like data protection and readily evolves to changes in scale, scope, applications, storage, server and cloud technologies over the life of data. In IT environements where data grows quickly or must live for years, decades or even indefinitely, these capabilities are invaluable.

Hitachi Vantara

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

Rabobank, Xinhua News Agency, Kremsm'ller Industrieanlagenbau KG, KSC Commercial Internet, AIS Group, Shanghai Interactive Television Co. Ltd (SiTV), China Telecom, Spin Master

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 2025

Free Report: Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Hitachi Content Platform 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.