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 17.8% 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: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Qumulo vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 864,053 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 August 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 17.8%, down from 22.4% 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

"The main feature I have found to be product replication."

"The most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."

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

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

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

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

"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."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

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

"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."

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

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

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

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

"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."

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

"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."

"The solution is pretty stable."

"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."

"I can compare Red Hat Ceph Storage with products from other vendors; I explored quite a few, but I still find that Red Hat Ceph Storage is making the most disruption."

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

"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."

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

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"It's on the expensive side, as expected for a niche product."

"Its configuration should be easier."

"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."

"I have not seen ROI."

"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."

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

"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."

"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"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 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."

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

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

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

"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."

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

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

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

"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."

"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."

"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."

"I have encountered issues with stability when replication factor was not 3, which is the default and recommended value. Go below 3 and problems will arise."

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

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

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

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

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

"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 have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."

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

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

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."

"There is no cost for software."

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

"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."

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

"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 price of this product isn't high."

"We never used the paid support."

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

864,053 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

13%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

14%

Government

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

11%

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 of Pure Storage FlashBlade is expensive compared to other products I used from other companies in the pas...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?

I believe there is not much improvement needed because they have everything we need, but the interface is a little bi...

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 19% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 9% 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 24% of the time

VAST Data vs Qumulo

Compared 13% of the time

NetApp FAS Series vs Qumulo

Compared 10% of the time

Scality RING vs Qumulo

Compared 9% of the time

MinIO 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 5% of the time

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

July 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

NAS

July 2025

Download Qumulo product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 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

July 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: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

864,053 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.