IBM Cloud Object Storage vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

IBM and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. IBM is ranked #12 with an average rating of 9.3, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.8. IBM holds a 1.0% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 16.7% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of IBM 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 IBM Cloud Object Storage both compete in the enterprise storage solutions category. IBM Cloud Object Storage holds the upper hand due to its advanced features and robust security, which justify its higher costs.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage provides excellent scalability and flexibility with integration into open-source ecosystems, making it adaptable for diverse deployments. It offers seamless integration with OpenStack and supports multiple storage types like block and object storage. IBM Cloud Object Storage features infinite capacity and strong data protection, making it ideal for sensitive transaction data. Its integration capabilities enable easy data movement between on-premises and cloud environments.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage can improve in user interface simplicity, reducing complexity for new users. Enhanced support for hybrid cloud environments and more intuitive integration options would make it more competitive. IBM Cloud Object Storage could benefit from reducing initial costs and providing more customizability in data management. Improvements in usability for less technical users and streamlining its setup process would enhance its offering.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage allows flexible deployments with extensive community support but may pose challenges due to its complexity. IBM Cloud Object Storage offers a simpler deployment process with robust customer service through its established enterprise support channels, making it easier for enterprises to implement and maintain.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage is more cost-effective, primarily due to its open-source nature and lower setup costs, leading to faster ROI. IBM Cloud Object Storage, although requiring a larger initial investment, offers higher ROI potential through its advanced security features and reliability, making it a worthwhile option for businesses with stringent security requirements.

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

Buyer's Guide

IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 872,869 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 November 2025, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.6%, down from 6.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Cloud Object Storage is 1.0%, down from 1.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 16.7%, down from 22.0% 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	16.7%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	5.6%
IBM Cloud Object Storage	1.0%
Other	76.7%

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

Steve Qualls

Senior Storage Engineer at Q & Q IT Consulting

Offers the ease with which you can move data between on-premises storage and the cloud and then retrieve it back on-premises when necessary

IBM Cloud Object Storage supports big data and analytics workflows. However, I usually have to refer to my documentation for that. Cloud environments are part of almost every project I've been involved in over the last few years, but I rely heavily on documentation whenever I need to do anything in the cloud. I know the basics, but the technical details always need refreshing. I create the drawings or diagrams of how the on-premises and cloud environments interact. So, visual representations are helpful. I'll diagram the on-premises environment, the cloud environment, and any appliances in between and then work from there. The integration capabilities simplified our data workflows. Like, the integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments.

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

"Pure Storage FlashBlade's scalability is one of the most valuable features, and importantly, it always works, allowing for seamless upgrades."

"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."

"The onboarding and integrated monitoring tools are pretty good."

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

"We have integrated it with VMware. The integration process is pretty good. Especially with VMware, it helps with the capacity of it."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The standout feature of IBM Cloud Object Storage is its top-notch security, making it ideal for sensitive applications like mobile financial transactions."

"The most valuable feature I like is when you connect it via CLI plug-in...It is a stable solution."

"The integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments."

"The capability to replicate data in different locations is valuable since it enables customers to have a cluster over various sites."

"One of Cloud Object Storage's best features is infinite capacity. This is one of the main advantages if you don't want to use your own storage. You also have the ability to write only, write once, and read many. It's like tape storage but software-based. This feature is essential for financial institutions that require that kind of protection if you write backup or data there."

"IBM has the most number of additional services, this is the main advantage."

"IBM Cloud Object Storage integrates well."

"Overall, I rate IBM Cloud Object Storage a ten out of ten."

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

"I really like that Red Hat Ceph Storage can be used as a total solution without any storage area network components."

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

"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."

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

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

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

"I can compare Red Hat Ceph Storage with products from other vendors; I explored quite a few, but I still find that Red Hat Ceph Storage is making the most disruption."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"On our dedupe during our initial buy, we were expecting a number a little higher like 4x. However, we are getting about 3.6. While it is close enough, it doesn't quite hit the numbers. So, this has been a challenge."

"Its configuration should be easier."

"I would like to see better integration."

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

"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."

"Its configuration should be easier."

"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."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"The performance could be better. It isn't bad, but everything is network-based, so you have a performance penalty on the network. You can never achieve the same performance as hardware. That's the disadvantage of cloud storage solutions in general. Cloud performance is one of the main issues clients have."

"The performance could improve in IBM Cloud Object Storage. The throughput or objects per second can have degradation."

"One area where IBM Cloud Object Storage could potentially improve is in modernizing its underlying codebase."

"IBM has limited cloud storage."

"Sometimes technical support lacks a comprehensive understanding of the entire solution, only focusing on the product they support."

"Room for improvement depends on customer needs. Some customers prefer pure Object Storage using the S3 protocol, while others use a gateway in front of the storage grid to enable CIFS or NFS."

"If I had to choose one area, it would be making the consoles more intuitive would be helpful. Sometimes, they can be a little complicated if you're not familiar with them."

"IBM Cloud storage is not cheap, but it could be."

More IBM Cloud Object Storage cons

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

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

"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."

"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."

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

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

"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."

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

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."

"The price of this solution could be made more affordable."

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

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

"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."

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

"The price is a little high."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"Pricing is not cheap."

"You have the option of a monthly or yearly license. Most customers choose the monthly option. I understand what you would like to say. IBM also lets you choose among four types of Cloud Object Storage. The difference is usage, performance, etc. Of course, high-performance storage is more expensive, while low-performance storage is for cold data, and it's really cheap."

"IBM Cloud is cheaper than AWS. If you want to scale your cloud infrastructure, it can be bought at almost the same price."

"Like most cloud providers, IBM likely charges based on storage capacity, typically per gigabyte or terabyte. Their pricing is competitive when compared to AWS or Microsoft."

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

"We never used the paid support."

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

"There is no cost for software."

"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."

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

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

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

872,869 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

Financial Services Firm

25%

Computer Software Company

19%

Manufacturing Company

Government

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

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	2
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 IBM Cloud Object Storage?

The integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Cloud Object Storage?

In general, Object Storage should be a cheaper solution.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Cloud Object Storage?

The interface can feel clunky and outdated compared to AWS S3 or Azure Blob Storage. While scalable, latency can be...

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

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% 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

MinIO vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 38% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 24% of the time

IBM Spectrum Scale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 12% of the time

HPE File Storage and Object Storage vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 11% of the time

More IBM Cloud Object Storage Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 42% 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 2% 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

IBM Cloud Object Storage

October 2025

Download IBM Cloud Object Storage product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

October 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

Cleversafe

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

IBM Cloud Object Storage is a web-scale platform that stores unstructured data - from petabyte to exabyte - with reliability, security, availability and disaster recovery without replication.

IBM

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

Bitly, Dreamstime, Prime Research

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

September 2025

Free Report: IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

872,869 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Cloud Object Storage 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.