Pure Storage FlashBlade vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Pure Storage and Red Hat are both solutions in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category. Pure Storage is ranked #8 with an average rating of 8.8, while Red Hat is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.8. Pure Storage holds a 4.1% mindshare in SDS, compared to Red Hat’s 18.4% mindshare. Additionally, 94% of Pure Storage users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 82% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.

Pure Storage FlashBlade

Read 38 Pure Storage FlashBlade reviews

4,959 Views
744 Comparison Views

94% willing to recommend

Red Hat Ceph Storage

Read 27 Red Hat Ceph Storage reviews

14,192 Views
2,980 Comparison Views

82% willing to recommend

Pure Storage FlashBlade

Red Hat Ceph Storage

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Pure Storage FlashBlade are competing in the storage solutions category. Pure Storage FlashBlade appears to have the upper hand due to its superior speed and advanced features, making it ideal for performance-centric needs.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers scalability, flexibility, and a wide range of use cases due to its open-source nature. It seamlessly integrates with cloud infrastructures and adapts to commodity hardware, providing scalable block and object storage from a single platform. Pure Storage FlashBlade provides exceptional speed, swift data handling, and advanced analytics capabilities. It excels with high throughput and reliable performance, offering seamless data snapshots and replication.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage can enhance its user interface, streamline integration processes for those outside the Red Hat ecosystem, and simplify its deployment strategy to broaden its adoption. Pure Storage FlashBlade could improve by reducing its reliance on specific hardware, offering more cost-effective options for smaller businesses, and enhancing its data redundancy features to match industry-leading standards.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage has a complex deployment due to its open-source framework, requiring skilled resources for management. In contrast, Pure Storage FlashBlade offers a straightforward deployment process, supported by comprehensive customer service, leading to a smoother implementation and better user satisfaction.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage is favored for its lower initial costs, presenting a cost-effective solution for businesses focusing on scalability without incurring excessive expenses. Conversely, Pure Storage FlashBlade involves higher upfront costs but offers significant ROI through enhanced performance and efficiency, making it an appealing choice for enterprises requiring high data processing capabilities.

To learn more, read our detailed Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: September 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 869,785 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

Ranking in Software Defined Storage (SDS)

8th

Ranking in File and Object Storage

8th

Average Rating

8.8

Reviews Sentiment

7.8

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

All-Flash Storage (15th)

Red Hat Ceph Storage

Ranking in Software Defined Storage (SDS)

2nd

Ranking in File and Object Storage

1st

Average Rating

8.2

Reviews Sentiment

6.9

Number of Reviews

Ranking in other categories

No ranking in other categories

Mindshare comparison

As of October 2025, in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 4.1%, down from 4.5% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 18.4%, down from 20.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

Software Defined Storage (SDS) Market Share Distribution
Product	Market Share (%)
Red Hat Ceph Storage	18.4%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	4.1%
Other	77.5%

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

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

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

"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 most valuable feature is Safe Mode."

"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."

"The solution provides many controllers."

"It uses the same platform for connectivity so integration is seamless."

"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."

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."

"High reliability with commodity hardware."

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

"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."

"I would definitely recommend Red Hat Ceph Storage. It is a complete solution for cloud-native storage needs."

"Ceph has simplified my storage integration. I no longer need two or three storage systems, as Ceph can support all my storage needs. I no longer need OpenStack Swift for REST object storage access, I no longer need NFS or GlusterFS for filesystem sharing, and most importantly, I no longer need LVM or DRBD for my virtual machines in OpenStack."

"I like the distributed and self-healing nature of the product."

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"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."

"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."

"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."

"It would be nice if you could store file-based in the same box with the same technology."

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

"I would like to see more VM-Aware features in the next release of this solution."

"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."

"I would like to see more deduplication."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"I have not identified any drawbacks, however, the response to public platform inquiries could be faster."

"Routing around slow hardware."

"I would like to see better performance and stability when Ceph is in recovery."

"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."

"The storage capacity of the solution can be improved."

"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."

"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."

"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."

"I have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

"The price is a little high."

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

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

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"There is no cost for software."

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

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

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

"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."

"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription as a bundle."

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

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pricing and cost advice

See which vendors are best for you

Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Software Defined Storage (SDS) solutions are best for your needs.

See recommendations

869,785 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

Computer Software Company

18%

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	20

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 outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensure...

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 past, but one benefit is that they have built-in ransomware protection. Approximate...

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 bit complex to understand. You have to understand it more deeply because it's hard...

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 solution allows for multiple copies of replicated and coded pools to be kept, ea...

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 the Stratus case, which is one of the most reliable systems available in the world...

See all answers

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 19% 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

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 7% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 5% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 41% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 5% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 5% of the time

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

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

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

September 2025

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

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

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

September 2025

Free Report: Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

869,785 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage report.

See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) vendors and best File and Object Storage vendors.

We monitor all Software Defined Storage (SDS) 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.