Qumulo vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Qumulo and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Qumulo is ranked #21, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.9. Qumulo holds a 4.0% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 18.5% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Qumulo 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 Qumulo are competing storage solutions in the enterprise storage market. While Red Hat Ceph Storage is favored for its cost-effectiveness and support, Qumulo is often considered to excel in its feature set, offering value that justifies its price.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage is known for its scalability, versatility in integrating with diverse hardware environments, and robust data management capabilities. Qumulo is valued for real-time analytics, efficient file access that supports seamless scalability, and higher data throughput.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could improve in simplifying its deployment process, enhancing user-friendly experiences, and providing more intuitive management tools. Qumulo can work on reducing its initial setup costs, expanding its feature set to offer more automation, and improving data migration tools for easier integration.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage benefits from open-source flexibility but requires advanced expertise for deployment. Qumulo offers a more straightforward deployment process with user-friendly configurations and responsive support, making it more accessible for businesses with limited IT resources.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage generally presents lower initial costs, providing a budget-friendly option with a substantial ROI over time due to its open-source foundation. Qumulo, despite potentially higher setup costs, promises faster ROI through its value-added features and operational efficiencies, making it appealing for those seeking immediate returns.

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

Buyer's Guide

Qumulo vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

June 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 857,028 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 June 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 Qumulo is 4.0%, up from 3.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 18.5%, down from 22.8% 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

VinceVitro

Senior Storage Architect at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Useful data sharing, simple cluster scaling, and excellent support

One aspect of Qumulo that I hoped to see improved was its software upgrade process, which did see significant progress during my usage. Initially, upgrading the software resulted in several minutes of system downtime. However, by the time I departed last summer, the downtime had reduced to mere ten seconds. Although I am unsure if Qumulo has yet achieved a completely outage-free upgrade, I simply performed the upgrades early in the morning before the marketing department began its workday, so any downtime was inconsequential.

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

"We have integrated it with VMware. The integration process is pretty good. Especially with VMware, it helps with the capacity of it."

"It is very easy to use, and it is very fast."

"Using this solution has made our backups more reliable."

"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."

"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 of this solution is performance."

"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 product is scalable and easy to expand."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The most valuable feature of Qumulo is the ability to share files and reliability."

"The data protection algorithm to protect the data between the nodes has been the most valuable feature. The integration with backup platforms such as Veeam and Veritas has also been valuable."

"It is a very stable product. I never faced any issues."

"The most valuable features of Qumulo are its rolling updates and all-day availability."

"The most valuable features of Qumulo are the ease of management and special permissions that are quick to enable. The overall performance of the solution is good."

"The feature that I like most is the analytics part of the file system."

"The ratio of total operational cost to complexity versus feature set is very good."

"The most valuable feature is real-time analytics."

"Most valuable features include replication and compression."

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

"Ceph has simplified my storage integration. I no longer need two or three storage systems, as Ceph can support all my storage needs. I no longer need OpenStack Swift for REST object storage access, I no longer need NFS or GlusterFS for filesystem sharing, and most importantly, I no longer need LVM or DRBD for my virtual machines in OpenStack."

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

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

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

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

"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"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."

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

"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."

"I would like to have Snapshots and Snapmail in the next release. People who came from a NetApp background, especially expect these features."

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

"I have not seen ROI."

"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"Qumulo should continue to expand automation and orchestration capabilities."

"The support for iMac and protocols should be improved, not all features are available."

"Some anti-theft permissions do not transfer well to Qumulo."

"One aspect of Qumulo that I hoped to see improved was its software upgrade process, which did see significant progress during my usage. Initially, upgrading the software resulted in several minutes of system downtime. However, by the time I departed last summer, the downtime had reduced to mere ten seconds. Although I am unsure if Qumulo has yet achieved a completely outage-free upgrade, I simply performed the upgrades early in the morning before the marketing department began its workday, so any downtime was inconsequential."

"The solution could improve availability and improve data protection or data services such as compression of deduplication. In a future release, we'd like to have more cloud API integrations."

"The price of the software is a bit expensive, so a reduction in cost would make it more competitive."

"In the future, I would like to see non-disruptive updates."

"In the next release, I would like to see the ability to have more control at a terminal level of the file system."

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

"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."

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

"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."

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

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

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

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate."

"The price is a little high."

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

"The product is very expensive."

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

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

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

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"The price of the solution is in the middle range compared to others. We look at the price per terabyte."

"The price of Qumulo is reasonable."

"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 price of this product isn't high."

"There is no cost for software."

"We never used the paid support."

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

"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."

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

857,028 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

15%

Financial Services Firm

Government

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 out...

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 per...

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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 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

Pure FlashArray X NVMe vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 3% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Qumulo

Compared 25% of the time

VAST Data vs Qumulo

Compared 14% of the time

NetApp FAS Series vs Qumulo

Compared 10% of the time

Scality RING vs Qumulo

Compared 9% of the time

Cloudian HyperStore vs Qumulo

Compared 4% of the time

More Qumulo 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

NAS

June 2025

Download Qumulo 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

Qumulo is a data storage and management platform that promotes object-based storage for users, backup archives, and surveillance. Its primary use case is to provide a cost-effective and feature-rich solution for managing large data.

Qumulo's data protection algorithm ensures the safety of node data, while its integration with backup platforms like Veeam and Veritas makes it easy to manage backups. The platform offers a good balance between operational cost and complexity versus feature set, making it an attractive option for businesses of all sizes.

Qumulo

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

County of Riverside Sheriff Department, Hyundai Mobis Automotive North America, University of Arizona, UCSD - San Diego Supercomputer Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Sinclair Oil, Royal Dutch Shell, Kaiser Permanente, Deluxe Creative, Vexcel Imaging, University of Florida, The Madison Square Garden Company, Arizona State University, Cinesite, San Diego Padres Baseball, Johns Hopkins University - School of Medicine, IHME, EllieMae, Washington State University.

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Qumulo vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

June 2025

Free Report: Qumulo vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

857,028 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Qumulo 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.