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 856,874 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

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

"The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."

"It uses the same platform for connectivity so integration is seamless."

"The most valuable feature is Safe Mode."

"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."

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

"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."

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

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

"The community support is very good."

"I would definitely recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. It is a complete solution for cloud-native storage needs."

"The solution is pretty stable."

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

"High reliability with commodity hardware."

"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."

"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."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"The documentational aspect of FlashBlade needs improvement."

"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."

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

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

"The Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us."

"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."

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

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

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

"Some documentation is very hard to find."

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

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

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

"Routing around slow hardware."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price is a little high."

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

"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."

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

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

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

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

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

"There is no cost for software."

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

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

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

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

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

856,874 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

16%

Computer Software Company

14%

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

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID 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

856,874 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.