Qumulo vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Qumulo and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Qumulo is ranked #11 with an average rating of 8.3, while Red Hat is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.8. Qumulo holds a 3.8% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 20.3% mindshare. Additionally, 100% of Qumulo users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 81% 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 Qumulo are competing storage solutions in the enterprise storage market. While Red Hat Ceph Storage is favored for its cost-effectiveness and support, Qumulo is often considered to excel in its feature set, offering value that justifies its price.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage is known for its scalability, versatility in integrating with diverse hardware environments, and robust data management capabilities. Qumulo is valued for real-time analytics, efficient file access that supports seamless scalability, and higher data throughput.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could improve in simplifying its deployment process, enhancing user-friendly experiences, and providing more intuitive management tools. Qumulo can work on reducing its initial setup costs, expanding its feature set to offer more automation, and improving data migration tools for easier integration.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage benefits from open-source flexibility but requires advanced expertise for deployment. Qumulo offers a more straightforward deployment process with user-friendly configurations and responsive support, making it more accessible for businesses with limited IT resources.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage generally presents lower initial costs, providing a budget-friendly option with a substantial ROI over time due to its open-source foundation. Qumulo, despite potentially higher setup costs, promises faster ROI through its value-added features and operational efficiencies, making it appealing for those seeking immediate returns.

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

Buyer's Guide

Qumulo vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

March 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 846,617 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 April 2025, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Pure Storage FlashBlade is 5.8%, down from 6.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Qumulo is 3.8%, up from 3.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 20.3%, down from 22.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

File and Object Storage

Featured Reviews

Eric Black

Solutions Architect at Recovery Point Systems

The ability to leverage multi-tenancy along with immutability is a huge benefit for us

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. Veeam Backup specifically has started to streamline their API, and they are doing that with SOS API. They have optimized it. Any of the S3 devices out there that support this SOS API can have far more API calls at once. On our side, that translates to better restoration. With SOS API, it can leverage far more restorations at a single given time or read from the device in simple terms. That results in maximizing the output and throughput from the device itself.

Read full review

VinceVitro

Senior Storage Architect at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees

Useful data sharing, simple cluster scaling, and excellent support

One aspect of Qumulo that I hoped to see improved was its software upgrade process, which did see significant progress during my usage. Initially, upgrading the software resulted in several minutes of system downtime. However, by the time I departed last summer, the downtime had reduced to mere ten seconds. Although I am unsure if Qumulo has yet achieved a completely outage-free upgrade, I simply performed the upgrades early in the morning before the marketing department began its workday, so any downtime was inconsequential.

Read full review

ANDRE VINICIUS HAMERSKI

IT Private Cloud & Infrastructure Leader at Sicredi

Offers cost-effective scalability through open-source storage integration

Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage. We appreciate the scalability of the open-source solution, allowing us to address our growing data needs without encountering major issues. Having used it as a pilot system in Brazil, we gained significant knowledge and the ability to manage our infrastructure as code.

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 initial setup was straightforward. If you know how to plug in power and network you're pretty much qualified. They were on site to configure the network, the box to fit into our network architecture. Other than that, we self-managed from there."

"It's very easy-to-use."

"Speed and ease of use are the two most valuable features."

"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."

"We have integrated it with VMware. The integration process is pretty good. Especially with VMware, it helps with the capacity of it."

"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."

"It is very easy to use, and it is very fast."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"The feature that I like most is the analytics part of the file system."

"The most valuable features of Qumulo are the ease of management and special permissions that are quick to enable. The overall performance of the solution is good."

"It is a very stable product. I never faced any issues."

"The most valuable feature is real-time analytics."

"The data protection algorithm to protect the data between the nodes has been the most valuable feature. The integration with backup platforms such as Veeam and Veritas has also been valuable."

"The most valuable features of Qumulo are its rolling updates and all-day availability."

"The ratio of total operational cost to complexity versus feature set is very good."

"The most valuable feature of Qumulo is the ability to share files and reliability."

"The solution is pretty stable."

"High reliability with commodity hardware."

"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."

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

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

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

"The community support is very good."

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"An area for improvement in Pure Storage FlashBlade is its price. It could be reduced. The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade also needs improvement. It used to be good, with more experienced engineers. Nowadays, it isn't, and it takes longer for support to solve problems."

"We haven't been able to use much of the cloud area of Pure Storage. We have a storage server and it would be better if it could integrate with other cloud features of this solution."

"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."

"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."

"In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready."

"I would also like to see better support for CIFS workloads."

"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."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"The price of the software is a bit expensive, so a reduction in cost would make it more competitive."

"Some anti-theft permissions do not transfer well to Qumulo."

"In the next release, I would like to see the ability to have more control at a terminal level of the file system."

"Qumulo should continue to expand automation and orchestration capabilities."

"The support for iMac and protocols should be improved, not all features are available."

"In the future, I would like to see non-disruptive updates."

"The solution could improve availability and improve data protection or data services such as compression of deduplication. In a future release, we'd like to have more cloud API integrations."

"One aspect of Qumulo that I hoped to see improved was its software upgrade process, which did see significant progress during my usage. Initially, upgrading the software resulted in several minutes of system downtime. However, by the time I departed last summer, the downtime had reduced to mere ten seconds. Although I am unsure if Qumulo has yet achieved a completely outage-free upgrade, I simply performed the upgrades early in the morning before the marketing department began its workday, so any downtime was inconsequential."

"The licensing cost is excessively high. This is a significant issue from my perspective."

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

"If you use for any other solution like other Kubernetes solutions, it's not very suitable."

"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."

"The product lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication."

"It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure."

"An area for improvement would be that it's pretty difficult to manage synchronous replication over multiple regions."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

"The product is very expensive."

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

"The price could be cheaper."

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"The price of Qumulo is reasonable."

"The price of the solution is in the middle range compared to others. We look at the price per terabyte."

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

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

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

"We never used the paid support."

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

"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 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

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Educational Organization

34%

Computer Software Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

15%

Financial Services Firm

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

18%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

10%

Government

Company Size

By reviewers

Large Enterprise

Midsize Enterprise

Small Business

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 for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate. FlashBlade is worth the money due to the experience and per...

See all answers

What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?

Its configuration should be easier. There should be easier language for the configuration.

See all answers

What do you like most about Qumulo?

The most valuable features of Qumulo are its rolling updates and all-day availability.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Qumulo?

Initially, the failover was supposed to be implemented in Qumulo itself. This failed to happen mid-case, so we had to...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Qumulo?

We use Qumulo for end-user storage and some application storage as well.

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?

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

See all answers

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 21% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 8% of the time

Scality RING vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 2% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Qumulo

Compared 25% of the time

VAST Data vs Qumulo

Compared 15% of the time

NetApp FAS Series vs Qumulo

Compared 10% of the time

Scality RING vs Qumulo

Compared 9% of the time

Dell ECS vs Qumulo

Compared 3% of the time

More Qumulo Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 42% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 6% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 5% of the time

Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 4% of the time

Portworx Enterprise vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Pure Storage FlashBlade

March 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

NAS

March 2025

Download Qumulo product report

Buyer's Guide

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

March 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

Qumulo is a data storage and management platform that promotes object-based storage for users, backup archives, and surveillance. Its primary use case is to provide a cost-effective and feature-rich solution for managing large data.

Qumulo's data protection algorithm ensures the safety of node data, while its integration with backup platforms like Veeam and Veritas makes it easy to manage backups. The platform offers a good balance between operational cost and complexity versus feature set, making it an attractive option for businesses of all sizes.

Qumulo

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

County of Riverside Sheriff Department, Hyundai Mobis Automotive North America, University of Arizona, UCSD - San Diego Supercomputer Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Sinclair Oil, Royal Dutch Shell, Kaiser Permanente, Deluxe Creative, Vexcel Imaging, University of Florida, The Madison Square Garden Company, Arizona State University, Cinesite, San Diego Padres Baseball, Johns Hopkins University - School of Medicine, IHME, EllieMae, Washington State University.

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Qumulo vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

March 2025

Free Report: Qumulo vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

846,617 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Qumulo 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.