IBM Cloud Object Storage vs NetApp StorageGRID comparison

IBM and NetApp are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. IBM is ranked #12 with an average rating of 9.3, while NetApp is ranked #9 with an average rating of 8.3. IBM holds a 1.0% mindshare in FaOS, compared to NetApp’s 5.8% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 88% of NetApp users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

IBM Cloud Object Storage and NetApp StorageGRID compete in the scalable data storage solutions category. Data comparisons indicate IBM holds an advantage in pricing and support satisfaction, whereas NetApp excels with advanced features that justify the cost for many businesses.

Features: IBM Cloud Object Storage offers comprehensive elasticity, efficient cost management, and integrated AI capabilities for enhanced data analytics. It is particularly suitable for dynamic storage needs. NetApp StorageGRID provides rich metadata management, policy-driven data placement, and seamless hybrid cloud integration, making it appealing for enterprises prioritizing versatility.

Room for Improvement: IBM Cloud Object Storage could improve in areas such as user interface customization, extended support for third-party integrations, and more flexible data migration options. NetApp StorageGRID may benefit from streamlining setup processes, enhancing user training resources, and reducing initial deployment complexity.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: IBM ensures straightforward deployment with robust customer service, allowing rapid integration with existing systems. NetApp StorageGRID requires a more structured setup, benefiting organizations needing detailed data distribution capabilities. IBM is generally favored for its responsive support and service reliability.

Pricing and ROI: IBM delivers competitive initial setup costs with a solid ROI due to efficient scalability and low-cost management. NetApp StorageGRID may incur higher setup expenses but provides superior ROI through strategic data lifecycle management, which is advantageous for businesses focusing on long-term data handling efficiency. The choice depends on budget and strategic goals.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. NetApp StorageGRID Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. NetApp StorageGRID

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

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 IBM Cloud Object Storage is 1.0%, down from 1.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp StorageGRID is 5.8%, up from 4.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

File and Object Storage Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Pure Storage FlashBlade	5.7%
NetApp StorageGRID	5.8%
IBM Cloud Object Storage	1.0%
Other	87.5%

File and Object Storage

Featured Reviews

Parul-Patel

Senior Network Engineer at Holy Redeemer Health System, Inc.

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

Steve Qualls

Senior Storage Engineer at Q & Q IT Consulting

Offers the ease with which you can move data between on-premises storage and the cloud and then retrieve it back on-premises when necessary

IBM Cloud Object Storage supports big data and analytics workflows. However, I usually have to refer to my documentation for that. Cloud environments are part of almost every project I've been involved in over the last few years, but I rely heavily on documentation whenever I need to do anything in the cloud. I know the basics, but the technical details always need refreshing. I create the drawings or diagrams of how the on-premises and cloud environments interact. So, visual representations are helpful. I'll diagram the on-premises environment, the cloud environment, and any appliances in between and then work from there. The integration capabilities simplified our data workflows. Like, the integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments.

Read full review

Michael Lopez

Sr Systems Engineer at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees

Has reduced storage costs and improved snapshot management for large data workloads

The advanced features of NetApp StorageGRID which our upper management wouldn't agree to use, include the S3 feature. We are heavy into AWS, and my thoughts were to develop a small dev environment or even a POC environment on-prem. That's still up in the air as we continue on. Currently, AI has taken over everything with a focus on AI. The upgrades of NetApp StorageGRID present a challenge. It's a rolling upgrade, node by node. At one point, one node would not upgrade. The positive aspect is that it didn't take down the entire environment. The environment remained functional on two different versions. The scalability of NetApp StorageGRID has been proven as we've expanded twice. We started with six or seven nodes and have grown to 15 nodes. It does take time for synchronization to complete. From what I've seen, it took a couple of months for it all to sync up once adding nodes. However, it was transparent. It captured the addition and performed effectively, all happening in the background, steadily and surely.

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

"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."

"The ease of deployment and management has helped us simplify our storage. We also do not have to worry about capacity management as much. A lot of these things are native to Pure Storage."

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

"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."

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

"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 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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The most valuable feature I like is when you connect it via CLI plug-in...It is a stable solution."

"IBM Cloud Object Storage integrates well."

"The capability to replicate data in different locations is valuable since it enables customers to have a cluster over various sites."

"Overall, I rate IBM Cloud Object Storage a ten out of ten."

"The integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments."

"The standout feature of IBM Cloud Object Storage is its top-notch security, making it ideal for sensitive applications like mobile financial transactions."

"One of Cloud Object Storage's best features is infinite capacity. This is one of the main advantages if you don't want to use your own storage. You also have the ability to write only, write once, and read many. It's like tape storage but software-based. This feature is essential for financial institutions that require that kind of protection if you write backup or data there."

"IBM has the most number of additional services, this is the main advantage."

"The backup features are valuable. I've heard from our backup and data protection people that our clients are very satisfied with the performance in junction with the backup, which they archive on this type of object storage."

"The implementation with NetApp went smoothly. It is a 'setup and forget' type of appliance."

"The ability to get to the StorageGRID from anywhere on my network. The solution is remote. You don't have to be at a physical location."

"Duplication, interface and the manageability is good and simple."

"Right now, we have an older StorageGRID. I like that we can grow it."

"The scalability is very effective for our customers."

"The management portals have most significantly improved our data retrieval times. They've made it much easier to restore data compared to our previous methods."

"The features or capabilities of NetApp StorageGRID that I have found the most valuable include scalability, interoperability, and integration options."

More NetApp StorageGRID pros

Cons

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

"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."

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

"Recently, while upgrading the version code, one of the controllers failed. Replacing the controller took between 14 to 20 days."

"The solution is expensive."

"To improve FlashBlade, some analysts suggest enhancing its handling of relational database management systems and SQL queries."

"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."

"The feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"The performance could improve in IBM Cloud Object Storage. The throughput or objects per second can have degradation."

"One improvement could be incorporating a feature similar to Dropbox's version history. This would allow users to track modifications made to files over time, which is particularly important for maintaining a record of changes. While the free version might not include this feature, it could be included in the paid version to provide added value to clients. Additionally, having a version history feature that allows users to access modifications made to files over the past three months could be beneficial."

"Sometimes technical support lacks a comprehensive understanding of the entire solution, only focusing on the product they support."

"If I had to choose one area, it would be making the consoles more intuitive would be helpful. Sometimes, they can be a little complicated if you're not familiar with them."

"Room for improvement depends on customer needs. Some customers prefer pure Object Storage using the S3 protocol, while others use a gateway in front of the storage grid to enable CIFS or NFS."

"IBM Cloud storage is not cheap, but it could be."

"IBM has limited cloud storage."

"The performance could be better. It isn't bad, but everything is network-based, so you have a performance penalty on the network. You can never achieve the same performance as hardware. That's the disadvantage of cloud storage solutions in general. Cloud performance is one of the main issues clients have."

More IBM Cloud Object Storage cons

"It's quite complex, which is a disadvantage; it's enterprise-level, it's complicated to set up, and you need external support."

"It has its quirks here and there, but it is an older NetApp system."

"The price is something that NetApp could improve, as with most companies. NetApp is known for not being the cheapest storage option, which is also valid for StorageGRID. There are other storage options on the market which we are aware of and have done proofs of concept for, but you cannot really compare the list prices because, as a big user of NetApp storages, we have totally different prices than some list prices. Still, the price information we got for other options are almost always less expensive than StorageGRID."

"The user interface of NetApp StorageGRID might need some tweaks, and configuration is maybe a little bit confusing for those who are not so experienced."

"One key improvement I'd like to see in StorageGRID is enhanced visibility for management purposes."

"The product's continual innovation and enhancement in integration capabilities with other NetApp solutions could be better."

"Data retrieval speed could be better."

"They can enhance the deduplication and compression features, which are crucial for saving more disk space."

More NetApp StorageGRID cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price could be cheaper."

"The pricing is relatively expensive due to the FlashBlade technology. However, for companies needing quick and reliable data access, the cost is justified."

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

"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 of this solution could be made more affordable."

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

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

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"Like most cloud providers, IBM likely charges based on storage capacity, typically per gigabyte or terabyte. Their pricing is competitive when compared to AWS or Microsoft."

"You have the option of a monthly or yearly license. Most customers choose the monthly option. I understand what you would like to say. IBM also lets you choose among four types of Cloud Object Storage. The difference is usage, performance, etc. Of course, high-performance storage is more expensive, while low-performance storage is for cold data, and it's really cheap."

"Pricing is not cheap."

"IBM Cloud is cheaper than AWS. If you want to scale your cloud infrastructure, it can be bought at almost the same price."

"Our licensing is in INR it was around 25 lakhs, which is roughly two million."

"The licensing that the S3 service provides them from a FabricPool standpoint is more attractive than the licensing from AWS or Azure."

"I rate the product pricing around five out of ten—it's negotiable, depending on the circumstances."

"Buying the solution is expensive, but it saves you money down the line when you factor in the logistics of not having to buy tapes."

"NetApp is not known for being the cheapest storage option on the market. Almost all of the other storage options we looked at were less expensive than StorageGRID. The price is one thing to criticize, which is what we hear internally and from customers as well. They find the cost of the terabytes in this class of storage a little bit higher than expected."

"The price is attractive."

"Creating your own data stores, backups, or storage grids, helps eliminate all these costs of downloading all the data back after you downloaded to the cloud."

"It is very cost-effective."

More NetApp StorageGRID 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

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

Financial Services Firm

27%

Computer Software Company

19%

Government

Manufacturing Company

Financial Services Firm

20%

Manufacturing Company

18%

Computer Software Company

15%

University

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	11
Midsize Enterprise	11
Large Enterprise	20

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	3
Midsize Enterprise	2
Large Enterprise	4

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	5
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	11

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

What do you like most about IBM Cloud Object Storage?

The integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Cloud Object Storage?

In general, Object Storage should be a cheaper solution.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Cloud Object Storage?

The interface can feel clunky and outdated compared to AWS S3 or Azure Blob Storage. While scalable, latency can be...

See all answers

What do you like most about NetApp StorageGRID?

The management portals have most significantly improved our data retrieval times. They've made it much easier to rest...

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NetApp StorageGRID?

It would definitely be more on the expensive side, especially if you compare it with open source solutions like Ceph.

See all answers

What needs improvement with NetApp StorageGRID?

If I could change anything in NetApp StorageGRID, that would be pricing. In terms of functionality, reliability, and ...

See all answers

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 20% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 10% of the time

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 9% of the time

Qumulo vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 3% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

MinIO vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 37% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 25% of the time

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 17% of the time

IBM Spectrum Scale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 11% of the time

HPE File Storage and Object Storage vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 10% of the time

More IBM Cloud Object Storage Competitors

MinIO vs NetApp StorageGRID

Compared 29% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs NetApp StorageGRID

Compared 23% of the time

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs NetApp StorageGRID

Compared 22% of the time

Scality RING vs NetApp StorageGRID

Compared 6% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs NetApp StorageGRID

Compared 3% of the time

More NetApp StorageGRID Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

September 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

IBM Cloud Object Storage

September 2025

Download IBM Cloud Object Storage product report

Buyer's Guide

NetApp StorageGRID

September 2025

Download NetApp StorageGRID product report

Also Known As

No data available

Cleversafe

Storage GRID

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

IBM Cloud Object Storage is a web-scale platform that stores unstructured data - from petabyte to exabyte - with reliability, security, availability and disaster recovery without replication.

IBM

Store and manage unstructured data at scale using NetApp StorageGRID for secure, durable object storage. Place content in the right location, at the right time, and on the right storage tier, optimizing workflows and reducing overall costs for globally distributed rich media.

NetApp

Sample Customers

ServiceNow, Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport, Dominos, Man AHL

Bitly, Dreamstime, Prime Research

ASE, DARZ GmbH

Buyer's Guide

IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. NetApp StorageGRID

September 2025

Free Report: IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. NetApp StorageGRID

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. NetApp StorageGRID and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

868,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. NetApp StorageGRID 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.