Pure Storage FlashBlade vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Pure Storage and Red Hat are both solutions in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category. Pure Storage is ranked #7 with an average rating of 9.0, while Red Hat is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.9. Pure Storage holds a 4.2% mindshare in SDS, compared to Red Hat’s 20.7% mindshare. Additionally, 97% of Pure Storage users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 82% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

Pure Storage FlashBlade

Read 37 Pure Storage FlashBlade reviews

813 Views
608 Comparison Views

97% willing to recommend

Red Hat Ceph Storage

Read 27 Red Hat Ceph Storage reviews

3,412 Views
2,168 Comparison Views

82% willing to recommend

Pure Storage FlashBlade

Red Hat Ceph Storage

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Pure Storage FlashBlade are competing in the storage solutions category. Pure Storage FlashBlade appears to have the upper hand due to its superior speed and advanced features, making it ideal for performance-centric needs.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers scalability, flexibility, and a wide range of use cases due to its open-source nature. It seamlessly integrates with cloud infrastructures and adapts to commodity hardware, providing scalable block and object storage from a single platform. Pure Storage FlashBlade provides exceptional speed, swift data handling, and advanced analytics capabilities. It excels with high throughput and reliable performance, offering seamless data snapshots and replication.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage can enhance its user interface, streamline integration processes for those outside the Red Hat ecosystem, and simplify its deployment strategy to broaden its adoption. Pure Storage FlashBlade could improve by reducing its reliance on specific hardware, offering more cost-effective options for smaller businesses, and enhancing its data redundancy features to match industry-leading standards.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage has a complex deployment due to its open-source framework, requiring skilled resources for management. In contrast, Pure Storage FlashBlade offers a straightforward deployment process, supported by comprehensive customer service, leading to a smoother implementation and better user satisfaction.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage is favored for its lower initial costs, presenting a cost-effective solution for businesses focusing on scalability without incurring excessive expenses. Conversely, Pure Storage FlashBlade involves higher upfront costs but offers significant ROI through enhanced performance and efficiency, making it an appealing choice for enterprises requiring high data processing capabilities.

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

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade 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

Ranking in Software Defined Storage (SDS)

7th

Ranking in File and Object Storage

6th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

All-Flash Storage (16th)

Red Hat Ceph Storage

Ranking in Software Defined Storage (SDS)

2nd

Ranking in File and Object Storage

1st

Average Rating

8.4

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2025, in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 4.2%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 20.7%, down from 22.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

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

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

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

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

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

"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."

"It helps simplify our storage, because the user interface is very simple and the installation is easy."

"The most valuable features of FlashBlade include its replication capabilities, reports, and easy allocation. Everything is user-friendly."

"The solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."

"Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage."

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

"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 most valuable feature is the stability of the product."

"The community support is very good."

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

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"The speed could be improved."

"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."

"Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration."

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

"Commvault has mainly driven the Analytics, providing data and reports. However, the product has room for improvement, especially regarding storage analytics. Upgrading firmware has caused issues, requiring feature disabling to revert to traditional backups. The firmware upgrades sometimes affect Commvault backups."

"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."

"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 like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabytes."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

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

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

"Routing around slow hardware."

"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."

"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."

"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."

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

"Some documentation is very hard to find."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"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."

"It's a costly solution, but Pure Storage FlashBlade doesn't require additional licenses. All of the software is combined into one bundle."

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

"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."

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

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

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

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

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

"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."

"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."

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

"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 Software Defined Storage (SDS) 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

18%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Financial Services Firm

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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 outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensure...

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 performance it delivers, including quick response times.

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

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 solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, ea...

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 the Stratus case, which is one of the most reliable systems available in the world...

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 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

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

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

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

June 2025

Free Report: Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

856,873 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage report.

See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors and best File and Object Storage vendors.

We monitor all Software Defined Storage (SDS) 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.