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 #8 with an average rating of 8.8, while Red Hat is ranked #3 with an average rating of 9.3. Pure Storage holds a 3.3% mindshare in SDS, compared to Red Hat’s 14.3% mindshare. Additionally, 95% 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 39 Pure Storage FlashBlade reviews

5,227 Views
732 Comparison Views

95% willing to recommend

Red Hat Ceph Storage

Read 27 Red Hat Ceph Storage reviews

13,676 Views
3,009 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: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 880,435 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)

8th

Ranking in File and Object Storage

8th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.5

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

All-Flash Storage (12th)

Red Hat Ceph Storage

Ranking in Software Defined Storage (SDS)

3rd

Ranking in File and Object Storage

1st

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.7

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 3.3%, down from 4.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 14.3%, down from 21.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Software Defined Storage (SDS) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Red Hat Ceph Storage	14.3%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	3.3%
Other	82.4%

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

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

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

"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 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 ensures efficient replication and helps maintain our data centers' uptime."

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

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

"We have seen a reduction in the total cost of ownership by around 20%."

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

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

"The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

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

"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."

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

"Most valuable features include replication and compression."

"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."

"The solution is pretty stable."

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"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."

"The technical support needs to improve. When we open a case, it is auto assigned to a support tech person. Nine out of ten times, we get an email right back saying that person is off until tomorrow. I cannot handle that. They just did this over the weekend to us, too. I had to call our rep and have them do something about it."

"Its configuration should be easier."

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

"In terms of technical support, the experience has been mixed. The support is done through email and is not that great, making it a very problematic area I've been dealing with for over four years."

"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 more deduplication."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."

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

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

"Ceph does not deal very well with, or takes a long time to recover from, certain kinds of network failures and individual storage node failures."

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

"It took me a long time to get the storage drivers for the communication with Kubernetes up and running. The documentation could improve it is lacking information. I'm not sure if this is a Ceph problem or if Ceph should address this, but it was something I ran into. Additionally, there is a performance issue I am having that I am looking into, but overall I am satisfied with the performance."

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

"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

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

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

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

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

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

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

"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."

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

"We never used the paid support."

"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."

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

880,435 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

15%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

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	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 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?

Regarding pricing, it is okay; we needed exactly this in size, and the price was a lot lower than competitors, making it good for us.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?

In my opinion, one way Pure Storage FlashBlade can be improved is by having more compatibility between the FlashArray and FlashBlade, allowing for synchronized data between both platforms.

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 17% 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 7% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 48% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% 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

December 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

December 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

December 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: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

880,435 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.