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

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Amazon Web Services (AWS) is ranked #10 with an average rating of 7.9, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.8. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 0.9% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 17.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Amazon Web Services (AWS) users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 82% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.
Sponsored
Pure Storage FlashBlade
Read 38 Pure Storage FlashBlade reviews
  • 4,959 Views
  • 3,372 Comparison Views
94% willing to recommend
Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...
Read 17 Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) reviews
  • 4,149 Views
  • 332 Comparison Views
100% willing to recommend
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Read 27 Red Hat Ceph Storage reviews
  • 14,192 Views
  • 10,076 Comparison Views
82% willing to recommend
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report
Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Amazon EFS are competing products in the storage solutions category, each with distinct advantages. Amazon EFS seems to have the upper hand due to its scalability and seamless integration with AWS services.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers a unified and scalable storage platform with strong data redundancy, supporting block, object, and file storage with CephFS. Amazon EFS features automatic scaling, shared file storage capabilities across multiple AWS cloud instances, and seamless integration with other AWS services, which enhances its utility within cloud ecosystems.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could improve in its complexity, requiring specialized technical knowledge for setup and management. It also relies partially on third-party support. Amazon EFS might be improved by lowering initial cloud service costs and enhancing its native support options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Amazon EFS offers simplicity in deployment with a cloud-native structure for rapid scaling and easy integration within AWS. It benefits from AWS's robust customer support. Red Hat Ceph Storage provides deployment flexibility for on-premise solutions but demands more technical expertise to manage effectively, with strong customer service often depending on third-party support.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage has lower setup costs and offers favorable ROI for on-premise environments needing extensive data management, with controllable long-term expenses. Amazon EFS, while having potentially higher initial costs due to cloud service charges, provides value through scalability and minimal maintenance, potentially offering higher ROI due to efficiency and reduced operational load in cloud-oriented infrastructures.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: September 2025).
Buyer's Guide
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage
September 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 868,759 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
Sponsored
Ranking in File and Object Storage
8th
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
38
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (15th), Software Defined Storage (SDS) (8th)
Amazon EFS (Elastic File Sy...
Ranking in File and Object Storage
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Storage (11th)
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Ranking in File and Object Storage
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.7%, down from 6.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is 0.9%, up from 0.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 17.3%, down from 22.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
File and Object Storage Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Red Hat Ceph Storage17.3%
Pure Storage FlashBlade5.7%
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)0.9%
Other76.1%
File and Object Storage
 

Featured Reviews

Parul-Patel - PeerSpot reviewer
High performance and throughput enhance IT backup management
The multi-dimensional scale-out design feature of Pure Storage FlashBlade is not in use in our environment. Regarding data reduction technologies, we don't get much deduplication because the data is already deduplicated from our FlashArray before we get to backup, so there is no benefit of deduplication. Regarding the integration with cloud-native ecosystem tools, we are not on cloud; we are strictly an on-premises solution. Pure Storage FlashBlade is not used by any end-user; it's used only for IT backup, with only about four people in our group managing it. I cannot recommend Pure Storage FlashBlade to other users depending upon their financial situation because it's an expensive solution, and the cost is very high, including licensing and renewal every year. I rate Pure Storage FlashBlade an eight out of ten.
Read full review
MuhammadAzhar Khan - PeerSpot reviewer
Auto-scaling capabilities enhance file management while reducing downtime
The most valuable feature of Amazon EFS is its auto-scaling capability. It's really easy to configure EFS by just creating it and running a command to directly configure it with my servers. It supports unlimited use, and charges are applied based on the file usage at the end of the month. The solution offers reduced downtime and increased durability through its auto-scaling features.
Read full review
Rifat Rahman - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"Among its most appealing features are its ease of handling and minimal maintenance requirements."
"It performs well and it is also very fast."
"It helps simplify our storage, because the user interface is very simple and the installation is easy."
"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 snapshots, replication, and the ability to have immutable blades are the most valuable features. You're putting data snapshots out in those blades, and they cannot be touched. Its performance is great."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade is user-friendly. It's replication feature is great because it has active replication and active DR. That's the beauty of the product. It's a perfect solution for block storage."
"The onboarding and integrated monitoring tools are pretty good."
"The solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."
More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros
"The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage."
"Elastic File Systems allow me to share data, provision, and manage capacity and performance in AWS."
"We haven't seen any downtime or challenges when using the services."
"The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations."
"Amazon EFS offers the flexibility of scaling as needed without requiring pre-provisioned storage."
"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."
"Amazon EFS is extremely stable, as it is managed by AWS."
"There are huge money savings, as we can save more than half of our costs."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) pros
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"The high availability of the solution is important to us."
"I would definitely recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. It is a complete solution for cloud-native storage needs."
"Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"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."
"Stratus allows more reliability than all the other types of computers available."
"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."
More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros
 

Cons

"It's on the expensive side, as expected for a niche product."
"To improve FlashBlade, some analysts suggest enhancing its handling of relational database management systems and SQL queries."
"The solution is expensive."
"I would also like to see better support for CIFS workloads."
"Its configuration should be easier."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration."
"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."
"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."
More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons
"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."
"I don't have notes on improvements."
"The initial setup requires prior experience and technical skills."
"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."
"What should be improved in Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is the costing, as it should be reduced, but that depends on Amazon."
"It could be better in connecting with Windows Server instances."
"Its deployment process could be faster while installing the Python package directly into the environment."
"When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them."
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) cons
"When it comes to the capabilities of Red Hat Ceph Storage such as object, block, and file storage, I am not fully satisfied."
"I have not identified any drawbacks, however, the response to public platform inquiries could be faster."
"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete. You will meet all kind of bugs and errors trying to install the system for the first time. It requires very experienced personnel to support and keep the system in working condition, and install all necessary packets."
"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."
"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, but they are not aware that a system can keep working even if there is a hardware failure."
"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."
"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."
"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."
More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is very expensive."
"The price could be cheaper."
"I rate the tool's pricing a seven to eight out of ten."
"The pricing is relatively expensive due to the FlashBlade technology. However, for companies needing quick and reliable data access, the cost is justified."
"The price is a little high."
"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."
"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."
"I have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."
More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice
"I would rate the pricing 7 out of 10."
"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) offers a pay-as-you-go model, so whenever you use its services, you need to pay."
"The product's price depends on the services and the size and capacity at which it is used in a business environment."
"The product charges are based on the amount of data stored."
"The main challenge with EFS is its cost, which is slightly higher compared to EBS or S3. For one GB or ten GB of data, S3 is much cheaper. EFS could cost around $30 to $50 per month for similar usage."
"It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage."
"The solution's price is mid-ranged."
"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."
"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."
"The price of this product isn't high."
"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​"
"We never used the paid support."
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
More Red Hat Ceph Storage pricing and cost advice
report
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
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Computer Software Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
5%
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business11
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise20
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business6
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise7
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...
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
Which file storage system is better - Amazon EFS (elastic file storage) or Azure File Storage?
Amazon EFS is easy to set up: you can use the AWS management console, API, or command-line. Amazon EFS can grow to pe...
See all answers
What do you like most about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
The product's initial setup phase is easy, as per the configurations.
See all answers
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)?
We don't need to purchase it; we are just using it and paying Amazon as per the utilization. We make direct payments ...
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 ...
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 Logo
Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 20% of the time
Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 11% of the time
MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 10% of the time
VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 8% of the time
Dell ObjectScale vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
Dell ObjectScale vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
Compared 5% of the time
More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors
Microsoft Azure File Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
Microsoft Azure File Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 75% of the time
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 5% of the time
Google Cloud Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
Google Cloud Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 4% of the time
Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 3% of the time
Amazon S3 Glacier vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Logo
Amazon S3 Glacier vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
Compared 3% of the time
More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Competitors
MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 41% of the time
NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 5% of the time
VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 5% of the time
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 4% of the time
Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
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
September 2025
Pure Storage FlashBlade reportDownload Pure Storage FlashBlade product report
Buyer's Guide
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)
September 2025
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) reportDownload Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) product report
Buyer's Guide
Red Hat Ceph Storage
September 2025
Red Hat Ceph Storage reportDownload Red Hat Ceph Storage product report
 

Also Known As

No data available
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

Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) provides simple, scalable file storage for use with Amazon EC2 instances in the AWS Cloud. Amazon EFS is easy to use and offers a simple interface that allows you to create and configure file systems quickly and easily. With Amazon EFS, storage capacity is elastic, growing and shrinking automatically as you add and remove files, so your applications have the storage they need, when they need it.

When mounted to Amazon EC2 instances, an Amazon EFS file system provides a standard file system interface and file system access semantics, allowing you to seamlessly integrate Amazon EFS with your existing applications and tools. Multiple Amazon EC2 instances can access an Amazon EFS file system at the same time, allowing Amazon EFS to provide a common data source for workloads and applications running on more than one Amazon EC2 instance.

It’s designed for high availability and durability, and provides performance for a broad spectrum of workloads and applications, including Big Data and analytics, media processing workflows, content management, web serving, and home directories.

Amazon Web Services (AWS)
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
Arcesium, Atlassian, Seeking Alpha, Zend
Dell, DreamHost
Buyer's Guide
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage
September 2025
Free Report: Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See our Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) 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.