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 8.0, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 9.3. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds a 1.1% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 14.7% 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.

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.

To learn more, read our detailed Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

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

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,733 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 February 2026, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.5%, down from 5.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is 1.1%, up from 0.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 14.7%, down from 21.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

File and Object Storage Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Red Hat Ceph Storage	14.7%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	5.5%
Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)	1.1%
Other	78.7%

File and Object Storage

Featured Reviews

MikaelHellström

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.

Read full review

Amaratunga Arachchige Vimukthi Amaratunga

Regional Manager at Aspire Lifestyles

Security features impress while response times need improvement

We use cloud storage security, which is a virus scanner for their infrastructure, as a new addition. Other than that, it focuses on serverless features, such as Lambda and Aurora SQL server databases. CSS cloud storage security, which is offered by AWS, is integrated into our system. It functions as a virus scanner that monitors whenever any incoming file arrives. The AWS service is excellent security-wise, and I have seen some other features besides security, such as automatic scaling that helped us significantly. Regarding integration, it provides us with the benefit that our data is kept within our account only.

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

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

"The most valuable feature is Safe Mode."

"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 initial setup is pretty easy and simple."

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is secure as it is used under VPC."

"I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice."

"We are not that big of a cloud user. We just use it for the storage of our bytes. The most valuable aspect is the storage."

"There are huge money savings, as we can save more than half of our costs."

"The first valuable thing is it is scalable."

"The solution is scalable."

"Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface."

"Elastic File Systems allow me to share data, provision, and manage capacity and performance in AWS."

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) pros

"The community support is very good."

"The solution is pretty stable."

"The setup is very easy, deserving a ten out of ten."

"Stratus allows more reliability than all the other types of computers available."

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

"I really like that Red Hat Ceph Storage can be used as a total solution without any storage area network components."

"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."

"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

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

"The solution is expensive."

"Its configuration should be easier."

"The documentational aspect of FlashBlade needs improvement."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"Its configuration should be easier."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"There are challenges related to AWS, such as ensuring proper security measures with IMS code and encryption."

"The user activity needs to be more connected."

"I don't have notes on improvements."

"Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS."

"It could be better in connecting with Windows Server instances."

"The initial setup requires prior experience and technical skills."

"The product's stability has some shortcomings where improvements are required."

"Elastic File Systems can be expensive due to the nature of data transfer costs, using services like SSTP, and potentially being costly in a rate-shift context."

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) cons

"Some documentation is very hard to find."

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

"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."

"If troubleshooting is needed, the response should be faster."

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

"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."

"We have encountered slight integration issues."

"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The product is very expensive."

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

"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."

"The price is a little high."

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

"The price could be cheaper."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"The product charges are based on the amount of data stored."

"I would rate the pricing 7 out of 10."

"The product's price depends on the services and the size and capacity at which it is used in a business environment."

"The solution's price is mid-ranged."

"Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) offers a pay-as-you-go model, so whenever you use its services, you need to pay."

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

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

"There is no cost for software."

"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."

"We never used the paid support."

"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."

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

881,733 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

10%

Government

Manufacturing Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Computer Software Company

12%

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

14%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	21

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	8

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	13
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	15

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?

Regarding pricing, it is okay; we needed exactly this in size, and the price was a lot lower than competitors, making...

See all answers

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...

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

Compared 18% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 9% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 8% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 7% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

Microsoft Azure File Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 85% of the time

Google Cloud Storage vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 2% of the time

Azure NetApp Files vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 2% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 1% of the time

NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP vs Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

Compared 1% of the time

More Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 50% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 2% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

January 2026

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System)

February 2026

Download Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

January 2026

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

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

December 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: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,733 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.