Red Hat Ceph Storage vs StorPool comparison

Red Hat and StorPool are both solutions in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category. Red Hat is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.8, while StorPool is ranked #20. Red Hat holds a 18.4% mindshare in SDS, compared to StorPool’s 2.8% mindshare. Additionally, 82% of Red Hat users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of StorPool users who would recommend it.

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Download the report

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 5, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and StorPool compete in the field of data storage solutions. StorPool seems to have the upper hand for businesses prioritizing performance and simplicity, while Red Hat Ceph Storage excels in adaptability and integration with open-source ecosystems.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage is recognized for its scalability, extensive integration capabilities within Red Hat's ecosystem, and high availability. StorPool is noted for its high performance, low latency, and ease of management, making it a compelling option for enterprises focusing on these factors.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could benefit from a simplified deployment process, enhanced user interface, and reduced complexity in integration requirements. StorPool might improve by expanding integration options, enhancing support for varied enterprise environments, and increasing its focus on ecosystem partnerships.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage presents a complex deployment model and requires substantial expertise for setup and integration. StorPool offers a straightforward deployment process with comprehensive solution-focused support. StorPool's customer service is highlighted for its responsiveness and personalized assistance, useful for organizations seeking quick resolutions.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage demands a significant initial investment, promising a strong ROI through its robust capabilities. StorPool, on the other hand, provides a competitive pricing model with lower operational costs, enabling a quicker ROI for performance-focused businesses. StorPool's pricing advantage and efficiency are appealing for enterprises seeking a high return with reduced initial expenditure.

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

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. StorPool

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 868,787 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 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. The mindshare of StorPool is 2.8%, up from 1.9% 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%
StorPool	2.8%
Other	74.7%

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

Q&A Highlights

Julia Miller

Community Director at PeerSpot

Nov 14, 2018

Storpool or Red Hat Ceph: Which Do You Recommend?

We have been using StorPool for over 3 years now and we are extremely happy with it. Since then we have witnessed an increase in the performance, whilst the downtime simply disappeared. When choosing a storage vendor, we also tried out Ceph, because it is believed to be good for block storage, but when we ran tests on similar hardware with both Ceph and StorPool, StorPool outperformed Ceph by an order of magnitude

See all answers

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

reviewer1721697

Managing Director at CloudScale365, Inc.

Great service and support with a constant addition of new features

As of now, the product has been working really well for us. They keep updating and launching new features. Their support has been great and have always been available. I have personally met with multiple Storpool engineers and spoke about different options and features. There are too many features that we don't know or use yet. My recommendation would be to promote the new features and give users different examples of how they can be used and how we can benefit from them. This is a great product.

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 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."

"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 ensures efficient replication and helps maintain our data centers' uptime."

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

"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 most valuable features include the ease of implementation, ease of use and the speed that you can do backup and recovery on."

"The solution provides many controllers."

"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

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

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

"Ceph’s ability to adapt to varying types of commodity hardware affords us substantial flexibility and future-proofing."

"Ceph Storage allows us to add value related to cost and offers a unique experience compared to traditional storage."

"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."

"Red Hat Ceph Storage is a reliable solution, it works well."

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

"The two 10GE networks provide redundancy and increased performance as they serve as two separate networks doubling the throughput and doing multipathing and load balancing. We now have a high performance shared storage system which enables us to run on private cloud. Our previous system used bare-metal hardware, which provided high performance but inflexible management. Now we have best of both worlds, SSD-class performance with flexibility of a private cloud system."

"Performance, redundancy, scalability and cost-effectiveness. StorPool delivers superbly in all of these areas."

"With StorPool we were able to build live failover on top of our LXC infrastructure. This allows us both to live-migrate containers between compute nodes without any downtime and, in case of an entire node suffering any type of failure, we can bring all containers back online within a minute on a spare compute node."

"Creating snapshots within seconds for big disks has helped our different migration projects since it allows us to perform them in a short period of time."

"The team behind it was very engaged and had the skills and ability to support a service provider."

"The speed of the storage solution also allows us to provide service to applications that are very I/O intensive."

Cons

"The documentational aspect of FlashBlade needs improvement."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"I have not seen ROI."

"Its configuration should be easier."

"We initially encountered challenges with the assembly process due to issues with the documentation required during setup, an area where Pure Storage needs improvement."

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"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."

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

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

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

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

"It took me a long time to get the storage drivers for the communication with Kubernetes up and running. The documentation could improve it is lacking information. I'm not sure if this is a Ceph problem or if Ceph should address this, but it was something I ran into. Additionally, there is a performance issue I am having that I am looking into, but overall I am satisfied with the performance."

"It needs a better UI for easier installation and management."

"In the deployment step, we need to create some config files to add Ceph functions in OpenStack modules (Nova, Cinder, Glance). It would be useful to have a tool that validates the format of the data in those files, before generating a deploy with failures."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

"It would be good if, with next releases, StorPool provide a better GUI for monitoring and statistics. This would make our experience even better and complete."

"he only place we feel they could improve is the time it takes to bring new features to production."

"I have personally met with multiple Storpool engineers and spoke about different options and features. There are too many features that we don't know or use yet. My recommendation would be to promote the new features and give users different examples of how they can be used and how we can benefit from them."

"Live and historical performance statistics would be useful, though my understanding is that this is on the way in a future release."

"At times we need to check the disks and do some minor operations. A friendlier user interface would be useful in such cases."

"Monitoring and statistics UI is a bit clumsy."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price could be cheaper."

"The price is a little high."

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

"We used a reseller for the purchase."

"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."

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

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

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"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."

"We never used the paid support."

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

"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."

"There is no cost for software."

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

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pricing and cost advice

"It provides us with a significant reduction in TCO due to their pay-as-you-grow licensing model, which means we don’t have to pay upfront for hardware and licensing for capacity thStorPoolat we don’t yet need to use."

"StorPool software is cost-effective and gives us a pricing advantage over our competitors."

"StorPool's pricing and licensing model is very transparent. As always, one has to due his due diligence when choosing a product like distributed storage solutions."

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

868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Answers from the Community

Julia Miller

Community Director at PeerSpot

Nov 14, 2018

Storpool or Red Hat Ceph: Which Do You Recommend?

2 out of 13 answers

it_user304281

Works

Apr 9, 2018

I have no knowledge of both. I only know some others like VSAN or S2D.

Read full answer

it_user695040

Business Development Manager at a tech vendor with 11-50 employees

Apr 9, 2018

StorPool - we work closely with the StorPool team and sell their SDS software alongside Dell servers for high speed and perfoming All flash systems. Great software and technology built from the ground up

Read full answer

See all 13 answers

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Comms Service Provider

Computer Software Company

17%

Performing Arts

17%

Manufacturing Company

16%

Government

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

By reviewers
Company Size	Count
Small Business	6
Large Enterprise	1

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

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?

Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about th...

See all answers

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 8% 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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

LINBIT SDS vs StorPool

Compared 21% of the time

StarWind Virtual SAN vs StorPool

Compared 10% of the time

VMware vSAN vs StorPool

Compared 9% of the time

More StorPool 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

Buyer's Guide

StorPool

September 2025

Download StorPool product report

Also Known As

No data available

Ceph

No data available

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

StorPool is intelligent storage software that runs on standard servers and builds scalable, high-performance storage system out of these servers (software-defined storage). It focuses on the block-level storage and excels at it. It is incredibly flexible and can be deployed in both converged setups (on compute nodes, alongside VMs and applications) or on separate storage nodes.

StorPool has advanced fully-distributed architecture and is arguably the fastest and most efficient block-storage software on the market today. It is the best storage system when building a cloud.

StorPool

Sample Customers

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

Dell, DreamHost

CloudSigma, Kualo, Togglebox, Neterra, Serveo, Superhosting.bg, GroupOne, DRFortress, Metanet, Dia, Server Storage Solutions

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. StorPool

September 2025

Free Report: Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. StorPool

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

868,787 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Red Hat Ceph Storage vs. StorPool report.

See our list of best Software Defined Storage (SDS) 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.