MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

MinIO and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. MinIO is ranked #4 with an average rating of 8.0, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 9.3. MinIO holds a 16.3% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 15.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of MinIO 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 2, 2025

Red Hat Ceph Storage and MinIO compete in object storage solutions. Red Hat Ceph Storage has the upper hand in enterprise-level integration, while MinIO excels in performance for cloud-native environments.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers seamless integration with Red Hat's ecosystem, scalability, and robust data solutions. MinIO is noted for high performance, simple deployment, and compatibility with AWS S3, making it ideal for cloud-native use.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could improve in ease of management and the user interface. It might also benefit from enhanced object storage capabilities. MinIO could enhance its customer support services and increase enterprise-level customization. Improvements in handling large clusters would also be beneficial.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage provides a comprehensive deployment process with extensive enterprise support resources. MinIO is known for its ease of deployment in containerized environments, though support relies heavily on community resources.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage involves higher initial costs due to its enterprise focus but offers significant ROI through integration and support. MinIO provides a cost-effective setup with impressive ROI for specific use cases, though additional costs might arise for extensive support and customization.

To learn more, read our detailed MinIO vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: December 2025).

Buyer's Guide

MinIO vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

December 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 881,082 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 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 MinIO is 16.3%, down from 21.5% 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
Product	Market Share (%)
Red Hat Ceph Storage	15.3%
MinIO	16.3%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	5.3%
Other	63.1%

File and Object Storage

Q&A Highlights

Netanya Carmi

Content Manager at PeerSpot

Nov 07, 2021

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 solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, easy replacement of failed hard drives, and easy replacement of scaled-out nodes. Red Hat Ceph continues working even when there are failures. We experienced some stability issues when we went beyond the default factor, which is 3. We found that the rebalancing and recovery processes can be a bit slow. Red Hat Ceph can be pretty complex to deploy and has a very big learning curve. MinIO is software-defined, runs in industry-standard hardware, and is an open-source solution. The retrieval of objects with MinIO is significantly better than many of the other solutions we considered. We found deployment to be very simple and even with numerous updates, MinIO ran seamlessly - we experienced no downtime. MinIO is amazing with regard to processing speed, volume, and accessibility to data. It can store large amounts of data, and you can retrieve, load, and transform the data quickly. MinIO offers both a browser interface and a command interface, which we found very useful. MinIO is lacking in a few documentation and monitoring tools that other solutions provide, though. It would be a better and more flexible solution if you could use an uneven disk structure. It would also be great to include some sort of graphical representation of data, like size and data type. Conclusion: We were looking for a high-performance object storage system that would work well with enterprise systems. We found that MinIO offered the stability and scalability in addition to the ability to deploy on-premise, in the cloud, or hybrid options most suitable for our needs.

See all answers

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

Abdelrahim-Ahmad

Data Scientist at a tech vendor with 501-1,000 employees

Provides good object storage functionalities

MinIO should provide an easier subscription model for companies that don't have a huge amount of data. Our company has a maximum of 100 terabytes of data. The solution should provide more bugging tools in the open-source version to encourage people to buy the support services. It's not an easy decision. If I go to the management and tell them that I need to buy a service, there should be an easier subscription model for companies that don't have huge amounts of data. For me, getting a subscription for 15,000 a year for a system already in production might be a bit hard. I think MinIO supports a minimum of one petabyte or 100 terabytes of data. Since we don't have such huge amounts of data, buying a subscription for the solution is a bit difficult. Hence, we're only using the open-source version for now. If MinIO becomes really crucial for our business, we could ask the management to get a subscription.

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."

"We have seen a reduction in the total cost of ownership by around 20%."

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

"The most valuable feature of this solution is performance."

"Among its most appealing features are its ease of handling and minimal maintenance requirements."

"The solution provides many controllers."

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

"What I like best about Pure Storage FlashBlade is its object storage functionality, plus it has fast underlying hardware. Pure Storage FlashBlade is also very stable. I find its stability one of its valuable features."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"This is an all-in-one, user-friendly data storage."

"It performs efficiently compared to other solutions."

"The most valuable feature of MinIO is its ease of use, replication, and active directory. All the capabilities are in this solution."

"Nice web interface, easy to use, with a low memory footprint."

"The features that I have found most valuable with MinIO is its coding bit rot protection and how it distributes the workload over all the servers."

"MinIO can work with attributes and folders, and it has the ability to use a stream approach for files. I have moments that should work exclusively. It also has some management features you can use, like exclusive locks that you can perform on one record or a collection."

"I use the solution's basic object storage functionalities, like AWS S3 compatible APIs and creating buckets."

"Good interface and a good approach to development and testing environments."

More MinIO pros

"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."

"The configuration of the solution and the user interface are both quite good."

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

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

"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."

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

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"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."

"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."

"The speed could be improved."

"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."

"I would like to see more deduplication."

"Commvault has mainly driven the Analytics, providing data and reports. However, the product has room for improvement, especially regarding storage analytics. Upgrading firmware has caused issues, requiring feature disabling to revert to traditional backups. The firmware upgrades sometimes affect Commvault backups."

"I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"Its reverse proxy features could be better."

"Documentation could be improved."

"The scalability is one of the limitations we have found. We are looking for another solution but they must provide the same characteristics, such as an affordable price and continuity."

"There should be the ability to expand the size after it has already been deployed. Currently, you cannot do that. It doesn't support an increase in size. Each time we spawn a new MinIO, we need to track the particular MinIO instance or tenant that has the file. Therefore, we had to create a multi-tenant solution that tracks the MinIO that has our artifacts. It isn't in one single instance. It should have better multi-tenancy support."

"The only downside I see is that you do not have a complete picture of an object."

"MinIO has behaved strangely in the past. For instance, the application dropped connection to MinIO. It's not too significant, but it loses connection. We're trying to understand exactly what is happening when this happens."

"The Distributed User Interface (DUI) needs some work. It's hard to view a large set of data on the DUI. It's an issue with the DUI's performance."

"The solution should have high availability. Also, support should be quick."

More MinIO cons

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

"When it comes to the capabilities of Red Hat Ceph Storage such as object, block, and file storage, I am not fully satisfied."

"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."

"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."

"Geo-replication needs improvement. It is a new feature, and not well supported yet."

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

"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."

"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

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

"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."

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

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

"The price is a little high."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"This solution is open source so it is free."

"We use the solution's open-source version."

"This is an open-source solution but I am using the licensed version."

"My company hasn't tried the version of the solution where we need to pay to use it."

"MinIO is a free open-source solution."

"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."

"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."

"We never used the paid support."

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

"The price of this product isn't high."

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

"There is no cost for software."

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

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

881,082 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

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

15%

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	11
Midsize Enterprise	4
Large Enterprise	9

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

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 MinIO?

I like that if you have a problem, you can buy the home server. It is stable and robust.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for MinIO?

We use the solution's open-source version.

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

What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Ceph Storage?

I do not have experience working with solutions such as Red Hat Ceph Storage and StorPool. I have plenty of experienc...

See all answers

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 18% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 9% 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

NetApp StorageGRID vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 4% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

NetApp StorageGRID vs MinIO

Compared 6% of the time

VAST Data vs MinIO

Compared 3% of the time

Cloudian HyperStore vs MinIO

Compared 3% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs MinIO

Compared 3% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs MinIO

Compared 3% of the time

More MinIO Competitors

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Dell PowerFlex 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

MinIO

January 2026

Download MinIO 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

MinIO is an open-source object storage system. It is designed to efficiently store and retrieve unstructured data, such as photos, videos, and backups. MinIO can be used as a standalone object storage server or as part of a larger system, such as a data lake or a private cloud, and can be deployed on-premise, in the cloud, or in a hybrid environment, making it a flexible storage solution for a variety of use cases.

MinIO’s features include erasure coding, bitrot protection, and checksum validation, which help ensure data integrity and reliability. The solution’s multi-tenancy support makes it ideal for multi-user environments. MinIO’s edge computing tools enable data storage and processing closer to users' locations, reducing latency and improving performance. MinIO can easily scale to accommodate storage and power demands, making it ideal for use in large-scale, data-intensive environments.

MinIO Benefits and Features:

MinIO offers several key benefits and features for organizations looking for a scalable and high-performing object storage solution:

Scalability: Horizontally scale to increase storage space and processing power as your needs grow.

High performance: MinIO’s edge computing and low latency provide fast data access.

Seamless integrations: MinIO is compatible with the Amazon S3 API, which enables integration with third-party systems and tools.

Data integrity: Security features, such as erasure coding, bitrot protection, and checksum validation, ensure data integrity and reliability.

Reduced costs: MinIO is an open-source solution, making it a cost-effective option for organizations looking for a scalable object storage solution.

Support: MinIO’s large open-source community of developers and users provides a wide range of resources and an active support network

Multi-tenancy: Multi-tenancy support makes MinIO suitable for use in multi-user environments.

Easy deployment: MinIO is easy to deploy and can run on a variety of platforms, including on-premise, in the cloud, or in a hybrid environment.

Access control: Role-based access control, enabling you to control access to data based on users permissions.

Event notifications: Automate workflows based on changes to objects in your storage.

Cross-region replication: Duplicate data between different regions for disaster recovery and data backup.

Intuitive interface: MinIO’s user-friendly dashboard can be accessed via any browser and can be used to perform multiple object operations including object creation and management.

Reviews from Real Users

MinIO stands out among its competitors for a number of reasons. Several major ones are its flexibility, integration options, and performance.

Süleyman Fazıl Y., a senior software engineer at a tech services company, writes, “The most valuable features are that MinIO is open, it works on-premise, and is compatible with the Amazon industry which is great for finding compatible libraries in many languages which is very good for developers.”

Rebecca S., CTO at NIASE, says, “MinIO is much improved over the prior solution, updates are simple to apply, and we anticipate that future capacity requirements will be easier to meet. Our customers are using this solution to retrieve tens of thousands of objects (documents and files) per hour, and MinIO seems to be able to keep up with it.”

MinIO

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

Information Not Available

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

MinIO vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

December 2025

Free Report: MinIO vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about MinIO vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our MinIO 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.