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

Hitachi Content Platform vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

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
7.5
Number of Reviews
39
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (12th), Software Defined Storage (SDS) (8th)
Hitachi Content Platform
Ranking in File and Object Storage
16th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Ranking in File and Object Storage
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (3rd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.3%, down from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Hitachi Content Platform is 1.6%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 15.3%, down from 21.3% 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 Storage15.3%
Pure Storage FlashBlade5.3%
Hitachi Content Platform1.6%
Other77.8%
File and Object Storage
 

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.
Mir Gulzar Ahmed - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at Synergy Computers
Integrates well with existing systems but technical support for the platform needs improvement
While deployment is simple, it's not as simple as StorageGRID. The architecture is entirely different, even though the end product uses the same protocols. The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. Deployment isn't as centralized either. Although I've deployed Hitachi Content myself in our production head office for the VM team, even though it's simple, it wasn't completely straightforward. They still required my help with the initial configuration environment setup. So, it's not just simple; there are some tricky aspects. The environment is tricky, but if you understand it, configuration can be done quickly.
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

"It performs well and it is also very fast."
"The solution provides many controllers."
"The tool's most valuable features are data warehousing, speedy recovery, and analytics. Its latest release is cost-effective."
"The most valuable features of FlashBlade include its replication capabilities, reports, and easy allocation. Everything is user-friendly."
"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 product is scalable and easy to expand."
"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."
"Speed and ease of use are the two most valuable features."
"Feature-wise, it has a lot of features. The most valuable features include de-duplication, encryption, version controlling, support, and tamper-proof data."
"The way that they handle the DR is very good because when there is a failover, it is seamless to the users."
"Hitachi is a big company, so it's a very strong product."
"As an architect, I like the management features that come with Hitachi Content Platform because it makes things easy."
"The Hitachi Content Platform is a stable and reliable solution."
"One of the most hidden valuable features is ensuring that you don't have bit rot, so it will go and check every single object that's stored on the system, then ensure that if there's a problem, it'll be repaired from either a local copy or remote copy, depending upon your configuration."
"The product provides the fastest technology."
"The main selling point is its compatibility with different environments. It functions like an on-prem Google Drive or Dropbox built on top of the object storage."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"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."
"The high availability of the solution is important to us."
"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."
"The scalability feature is used by all users and is critical for our operations."
 

Cons

"I have not seen ROI."
"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."
"The Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration."
"We initially encountered challenges with the assembly process due to issues with the documentation required during setup, an area where Pure Storage needs improvement."
"The speed could be improved."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"In my opinion, one way Pure Storage FlashBlade can be improved is by having more compatibility between the FlashArray and FlashBlade, allowing for synchronized data between both platforms."
"The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. So it can be more user-friendly."
"At present, it is complicated to use the CLI command."
"Two things that can be improved are pricing and configuration. Mostly the pricing is an issue. And if I were to add anything, I would say more integration with backup solutions such as Veeam Backup."
"In terms of the customer support, I can say it's a mixed reaction depending on the country."
"They should improve the user interface. It's a little bit complex. It does not have a self-learning method. You need to know how to use it before you touch the system. The user interface is not self-explanatory."
"Hitachi Content Platform is a complicated solution. You need to put several pieces of the hardware together in order to achieve the capacity or the performance needed."
"This product's ability to track logs for access still needs to be improved."
"The solution could use more integration with clouds."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"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."
"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."
"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our licensing is renewed annually."
"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 price of this solution could be made more affordable."
"I understand that it is competitively priced compared to other brands."
"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."
"We used a reseller for the purchase."
"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."
"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."
"The product’s cost is average."
"The pricing could be better."
"Hitachi is more expensive than StorageGRID."
"Pricing is comparable to other solutions in the market."
"The price of the Hitachi Content Platform is very high."
"I think the ROI for this solution is very good because the pricing for it is in between other solutions."
"Overall, it's costly."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"We never used the paid support."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
"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 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."
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 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
7%
Computer Software Company
22%
Financial Services Firm
20%
Government
9%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Comms Service Provider
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 Business4
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise4
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 do you like most about Hitachi Content Platform?
Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging.
What needs improvement with Hitachi Content Platform?
In comparison to competitors like Huawei, which can use all storage protocols in the same platform, Hitachi Content P...
What is your primary use case for Hitachi Content Platform?
Mainly, from my project, Hitachi Content Platform is used for archiving. The customer is in banking, so they need to ...
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
HCP, Hitachi Vantara Content Platform, Hitachi Vantara HCP
Ceph
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ServiceNow, Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport, Dominos, Man AHL
Rabobank, Xinhua News Agency, Kremsm'ller Industrieanlagenbau KG, KSC Commercial Internet, AIS Group, Shanghai Interactive Television Co. Ltd (SiTV), China Telecom, Spin Master
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.