Pure Storage Evergreen One vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Pure Storage and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Pure Storage is ranked #14 with an average rating of 9.0, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.9. Pure Storage holds a 0.4% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 17.8% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Pure Storage 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 Pure Storage Evergreen One are competing in the storage solutions market. Pure Storage Evergreen One has the upper hand with advanced features making it a valuable investment.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers scalability, open-source flexibility for customization, and a strong community base for updates. Pure Storage Evergreen One provides non-disruptive technology upgrades, an all-flash architecture for high-speed performance, and reliability.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage features a straightforward deployment process with comprehensive documentation and active community forums, though complex setups may require technical skills. Pure Storage Evergreen One offers a seamless deployment experience with automated features and a dedicated support team providing strong customer service.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage operates on a cost-effective open-source model with high ROI through scalability. Pure Storage Evergreen One, with higher initial costs, justifies expenses with efficient technologies enhancing ROI over time.

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

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage Evergreen One vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 865,484 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 August 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 Pure Storage Evergreen One is 0.4%, up from 0.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 17.8%, down from 22.4% 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

Michael-Daniel

Virtual Storage Administrator at Coast

Exceptional speed improves performance with short and long-term storage

We are using it in-house for our data center to run all of our VMware environment and our VDI environment on. Infrastructure consumption, as well as short-term and long-term storage, is included The speed of the product is quite a bit better in performance than the previous environment we were…

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

"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 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 solution provides many controllers."

"The initial setup was straightforward. If you know how to plug in power and network you're pretty much qualified. They were on site to configure the network, the box to fit into our network architecture. Other than that, we self-managed from there."

"FlashBlade offers low latency, high throughput, and seamless scalability."

"It has absolutely simplified our storage because the dashboards on the consoles show a clear understanding of where you are, and it is also very easy to provision. This been a big help for our teams."

"The most valuable feature is Safe Mode."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"Pure Storage has the highest Net Promoter Score in the market."

"The speed of the product is quite a bit better in performance than the previous environment we were running on, and it seems to have a better feature set."

"We have snapshots. We put snapshots on disks, and we can save information. In the case of ransomware, everything is in the snapshot. We have a snapshot lock on it, so it's safe."

"The speed of the product is quite a bit better in performance than the previous peer environment we were running on, and it seems to have a better feature set."

"The Evergreen program is excellent, and the pricing is quite reasonable. My friends who work there are doing very well and consistently achieving strong results. Like any company, they experience occasional downturns but perform impressively overall."

"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."

"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."

"Data redundancy is a key feature, since it can survive failures (disks/servers). We didn’t lose our data or have a service interruption during server/disk failures."

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

"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."

"The scalability feature is used by all users and is critical for our operations."

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

"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."

"Its configuration should be easier."

"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."

"I have not seen ROI."

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

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

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"Many customers report that the starting price is quite high. However, the overall total cost of ownership can be reduced over time due to features like the Evergreen architecture, which allows savings through less management and environmental benefits."

"It would be nice to have support in Swedish."

"To me, I think it's a little expensive. Then again, you get what you pay for."

"The only potential drawback is that Pure Storage might be overkill if you don't need microsecond response times."

"I'm not sure if any improvements are needed."

"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."

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

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

"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."

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

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

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

"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"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."

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

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

"The product is very expensive."

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"The pricing is very good."

"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."

"There is no cost for software."

"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."

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

"We never used the paid support."

"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

865,484 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Financial Services Firm

19%

Manufacturing Company

15%

Retailer

11%

Healthcare Company

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

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 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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage Evergreen One?

Initially, the starting price is high, but over time, due to reduced management needs and environmental savings, the ...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage Evergreen One?

Many customers report that the starting price is quite high. However, the overall total cost of ownership can be redu...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Pure Storage Evergreen One?

I am not a user of Pure Storage Evergreen One ( /products/pure-storage-evergreen-one-reviews ). I manage this brand i...

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 19% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 9% of the time

Dell ECS vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 5% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

HPE GreenLake vs Pure Storage Evergreen One

Compared 35% of the time

Dell APEX vs Pure Storage Evergreen One

Compared 30% of the time

NetApp Keystone vs Pure Storage Evergreen One

Compared 15% of the time

Amazon EBS (Elastic Block Store) vs Pure Storage Evergreen One

Compared 12% of the time

Object First Ootbi vs Pure Storage Evergreen One

Compared 8% of the time

More Pure Storage Evergreen One Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 39% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% 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

Cloud Storage

August 2025

Download Pure Storage Evergreen One product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

August 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

The Pure Storage Evergreen Portfolio offers a range of subscription-based storage solutions tailored to diverse data storage, management, and cost needs. Providing unmatched choice and flexibility, it offers multiple subscription models to align with varying requirements and budgets while leveraging Pure Storage's proven Evergreen Architecture for non-disruptive upgrades and futureproofing. The portfolio includes three specific programs: Evergreen//One, a hybrid cloud storage solution with guaranteed SLA; Evergreen//Flex, offering subscription-based ownership with flexible payment structures; and Evergreen//Forever, providing ongoing hardware and software upgrades for traditional storage purchases, simplifying ownership and eliminating the need for frequent hardware replacements.

Pure Storage

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. Aetna 2. Adobe 3. ADP 4. Aflac 5. Allstate 6. Amazon 7. American Express 8. American Greetings 9. Ameriprise Financial 10. ATT 11. Autodesk 12. Bank of America 13. Barclay's 14. Baxter International 15. Berkshire Hathaway 16. BlackRock 17. Boeing 18. Bristol-Myers Squibb 19. Capital One 20. Caterpillar 21. Citigroup 22. Coca-Cola 23. Comcast2 4. ConocoPhillips 25. Constellation Brands 26. CVS Health 27. Dell 28. Disney 29. Dominion Energy 30. Eli Lilly and Company 31. Equinix 32. ExxonMobil

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage Evergreen One vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 2025

Free Report: Pure Storage Evergreen One vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

865,484 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Pure Storage Evergreen One 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.