IBM Storage Fusion vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

IBM and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. IBM is ranked #27, while Red Hat is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.8. IBM holds a 0.6% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 18.5% mindshare. Additionally, 82% of Red Hat users are willing to recommend the solution.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive Summary

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

Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Nutanix, Dell Technologies and others in File and Object Storage.

To learn more, read our detailed File and Object Storage Report (Updated: May 2025).

Buyer's Guide

File and Object Storage

May 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 853,831 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 IBM Storage Fusion is 0.6%, up from 0.1% 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

Branko Cirovic

Storage Engineer at Comtrade Group

Enables seamless file distribution while benefiting from scalability but could use simplified implementation

IBM Storage Fusion is used in telecoms. It is a file center that receives and shares files. It is also used for writing the CDR zone on the storage, since it offers a cost-effective solution for large-scale storage needs in a telecom setup The deployment of Storage Fusion has been new for us in…

Read full review

ANDRE VINICIUS HAMERSKI

IT Private Cloud & Infrastructure Leader at Sicredi

Offers cost-effective scalability through open-source storage integration

Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage. We appreciate the scalability of the open-source solution, allowing us to address our growing data needs without encountering major issues. Having used it as a pilot system in Brazil, we gained significant knowledge and the ability to manage our infrastructure as code.

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."

"I like its size. It is smaller than the other competitors. We can plug in many blades, and we can have data up to one terabyte."

"The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."

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

"It's very easy-to-use."

"The tool's most valuable features are data warehousing, speedy recovery, and analytics. Its latest release is cost-effective."

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

"The solution provides many controllers."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"Fusion provides the ability to install the secret server and distribute files; it serves as a black box where tickets are opened only if issues arise, reducing frequent upgrade problems."

"Replicated and erasure coded pools have allowed for multiple copies to be kept, easy scale-out of additional nodes, and easy replacement of failed hard drives. The solution continues working even when there are errors."

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

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

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

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

"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."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."

"The features provided for SMB customers are limited."

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

"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."

"It usually comes down to just what you hit and the value you're getting when you spend the money and license the products. I would always go, "If you want to make things better, lower your price and make your licensing simpler." There's always an opportunity around that."

"The solution is expensive."

"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"The implementation is complex, especially when using custom servers."

"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."

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

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

"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."

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

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

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

"The price is a little high."

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

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

"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 product is very expensive."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

Information not available

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

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

"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."

"We never used the paid support."

"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."

"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

853,831 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

22%

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Manufacturing Company

No data available

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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Storage Fusion?

Compared to other options, purchasing IBM Storage Fusion, along with necessary hardware and maintenance, comes with a...

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Storage Fusion?

The implementation is complex, especially when using custom servers. Simplification or better support for this aspect...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for IBM Storage Fusion?

IBM Storage Fusion is used in telecoms. It is a file center that receives and shares files. It is also used for writi...

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?

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

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

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs IBM Storage Fusion

Compared 39% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs IBM Storage Fusion

Compared 34% of the time

Dell ECS vs IBM Storage Fusion

Compared 28% of the time

More IBM Storage Fusion 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

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) 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 IBM Storage Fusion product report

Buyer's Guide

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

May 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

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 Storage Fusion is a powerful platform used for data management, monitoring, and performance optimization. Users leverage its intuitive interface for capacity planning, storage provisioning, and troubleshooting.

The product's scalability allows for easy expansion, while its reliability ensures data protection. With predictive analytics and automation features, users can enhance efficiency and prevent downtime.

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

1. Accenture 2. Aetna 3. AIG 4. Airbus 5. Allstate 6. Amazon 7. American Express 8. ATT 9. Bank of America 10. Barclays 11. BASF 12. Bayer 13. Bechtel 14. Boeing 15. BNP Paribas 16. Cisco 17. Coca-Cola 18. Comcast 19. Dell 20. Deutsche Bank 21. Eni 22. ExxonMobil 23. Ford 24. GE 25. Google 26. Hitachi 27. Honeywell 28. IBM 29. Intel 30. JPMorgan Chase 31. Kellogg's 32. Lockheed Martin

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

File and Object Storage

May 2025

Download Free Report

Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Nutanix, Dell Technologies and others in File and Object Storage. Updated: May 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

853,831 professionals have used our research since 2012.

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.