Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

QoreStor vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 23, 2025

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
Sponsored
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
39
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (12th)
QoreStor
Ranking in Software Defined Storage (SDS)
21st
Ranking in File and Object Storage
22nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
9
Ranking in other categories
Backup and Recovery (53rd), Data Replication (11th), Disk Based Backup Systems (8th), Storage Software (5th), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (30th), Copy Data Management (6th)
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
27
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 QoreStor is 1.0%. 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
ProductMarket Share (%)
Red Hat Ceph Storage14.3%
Pure Storage FlashBlade3.3%
QoreStor1.0%
Other81.4%
Software Defined Storage (SDS)
 

Featured Reviews

MikaelHellström - PeerSpot reviewer
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.
Jeff Manuszak - PeerSpot reviewer
CTO at EDSI
Cost-efficient, highly scalable, and installable on different types of hardware
They could improve on support a little bit. We have not had to engage their support much, but when we do have issues, it can take longer to get things resolved. We are pretty lenient as we do a lot of IT support ourselves. We are not very hard on support organizations, but when a customer has a support issue, it would be easier if the support processes were a little bit more automated. It would be beneficial to have an easier way to upload diagnostic dump files. They can make it easy for the customer to collect the diagnostic data. There can be some kind of monitoring solutions to alert users to issues with the appliance or software, making it easy for customers to monitor their systems in the field. This is especially critical because it stores customers' backups, and a failure can have significant business impacts. If a customer does not have the backups and has a disaster, they can be out of business, so monitoring is key.
Rifat Rahman - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."
"Among its most appealing features are its ease of handling and minimal maintenance requirements."
"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 features include the ease of implementation, ease of use and the speed that you can do backup and recovery on."
"Using this solution has made our backups more reliable."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade's scalability is one of the most valuable features, and importantly, it always works, allowing for seamless upgrades."
"I would rate this solution an eight plus. It has has good flexibility and stability, it's easy to manage and the response time is good."
"We have integrated it with VMware. The integration process is pretty good. Especially with VMware, it helps with the capacity of it."
"Deduplication is the most valuable feature. It saves us a lot of space. When we back up 100 terabytes of data, after dedupe, it only uses maybe five to six terabytes for the disk space in QoreStor."
"Quest QoreStor definitely saved us money."
"We need revisions and safe backup so that it could be held up in court, but deduplication and compression are the main features why we have Quest QoreStor. That's where it really shines. I use ZFS and XFS at home, and Quest QoreStor is even better."
"I would rate QoreStor a ten out of ten for what it offers for the price."
"The dedupe and compression are pretty extreme. On disk, we're getting dedupe rates of up to 65 percent of data and compression of 34 percent. When you go to the cloud, it's more like 76 percent for dedupe and almost 50 percent for compression."
"Quest QoreStor is very stable compared to our previous solution."
"The features we use for the data deduplication are nice because we're able to back up a much larger amount of data, yet it doesn't necessarily take up that much data on the devices."
"The extreme compression of data is a big thing for us. We were looking for an online backup solution, and QoreStor is very good in terms of data compression. It helps us minimize the required storage in the Blob Storage environment."
"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."
"The solution is pretty stable."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"It has helped to save money and scale the storage without limits."
"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"I would definitely recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. It is a complete solution for cloud-native storage needs."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
 

Cons

"I would like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabytes."
"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."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration."
"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."
"Recently, while upgrading the version code, one of the controllers failed. Replacing the controller took between 14 to 20 days."
"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."
"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."
"Its configuration should be easier."
"In terms of improvement, we would like to have an Air Gap feature to prevent a virus from attaching to something. So that when we don't do a backup, we want the QoreStor to stay offline. It would be a nice feature to have."
"Overall, I am happy with this solution, but a way to export configuration settings would be beneficial."
"They need to increase their maximum capacity. Other than that, they're doing a pretty good job."
"Overall, I am happy with this solution, but a way to export configuration settings would be beneficial. After everything is set up and configured, there should be a way to export the configuration. In case something happens to the QoreStor server, and we need to reinstall and configure everything, being able to import the configuration would be helpful. This feature does not currently exist."
"The management interface is in need of improvement. The graphical user interface (GUI) for the web management tools appears clunky, and not super intuitive."
"They could improve on support a little bit. We have not had to engage their support much, but when we do have issues, it can take longer to get things resolved."
"The ransomware protection of QoreStor could use improvement."
"The setup of the software is definitely not the easiest thing. I worked a lot with Quest engineers, especially in the early days when we were first testing it and trying it out. I actually had some of the developers working with us at one point because they were going through these point releases, and I was having trouble getting it to work in this S3-compatible situation. We got it all working eventually, but setup is definitely not the easiest thing in the world."
"While the documentation for Ceph Storage is helpful, it could be improved."
"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."
"While the documentation for Ceph Storage is helpful, it could be improved."
"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."
"The licensing cost is excessively high. This is a significant issue from my perspective."
"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."
"I have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."
"The pricing for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate."
"The pricing is relatively expensive due to the FlashBlade technology. However, for companies needing quick and reliable data access, the cost is justified."
"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."
"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 understand that it is competitively priced compared to other brands."
"The price could be cheaper."
"The cost is per terabyte, and overall, the cost was reasonable when compared to some competitors."
"Quest QoreStor's pricing is affordable. We evaluated Veeam, a well-known company for backup solutions, but found their pricing to be quite high. Veeam's price was almost double. For us, Quest QoreStor is very affordable."
"Its pricing model is very attractive. You have one price, and you get everything from QoreStor."
"The pricing is good. It is competitive for a managed services provider. I like the ability to pay by the terabyte, allowing for an incremental cost that we and our customers can afford, so the solution grows with the customer."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"The price of this product isn't high."
"We never used the paid support."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
"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."
"There is no cost for software."
"The other big advantage is that Ceph is free software. Compared to traditional SAN based storage, it is very economical."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions are best for your needs.
879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Performing Arts
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Media Company
6%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Educational Organization
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise21
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise1
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
 

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...
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...
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...
What else besides data replication does QoreStor offer?
Quest QoreStor can be used for multiple things besides data replication. For example, it can be trusted to make a bac...
How does Quest QoreStore protect your data?
One of our favorite features of Quest QoreStore for data protection isn't the backup, actually, though we're using it...
How does Quest QoreStore solve repetitive data replicas?
When I first found out about data replication and the many benefits it had, I couldn't help but wonder - what about t...
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 ...
What do you like most about Red Hat Ceph Storage?
The high availability of the solution is important to us.
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...
 

Also Known As

No data available
QoreStor
Ceph
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ServiceNow, Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport, Dominos, Man AHL
American Airlines, at&t, Bank of America. Barclays, ebay, Ford
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about QoreStor vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
879,853 professionals have used our research since 2012.