Hitachi Content Platform vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Hitachi Vantara and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Hitachi Vantara is ranked #17 with an average rating of 8.0, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 8.8. Hitachi Vantara holds a 1.6% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 17.8% mindshare. Additionally, 88% of Hitachi Vantara 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 4, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and Hitachi Content Platform compete in the object storage solutions category. Hitachi Content Platform appears to have the upper hand due to its advanced data management and governance features.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers scalable data storage, flexible integration across platforms, and support for diverse infrastructure. Hitachi Content Platform provides advanced data management, strong governance capabilities, and enhanced control and security over data.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage could improve its advanced data governance features, interface usability, and initial setup process. Hitachi Content Platform may benefit from more competitive pricing, streamlined integration processes, and enhanced scalability options.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage provides a flexible deployment model with extensive support resources for smooth integration. Hitachi Content Platform offers a structured deployment process with strong customer service, appealing to businesses seeking reliable assistance.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage is praised for competitive initial costs and favorable ROI, making it attractive for budget-conscious buyers. Hitachi Content Platform may have higher upfront costs but delivers significant ROI through its advanced features and long-term benefits.

To learn more, read our detailed Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: July 2025).

Buyer's Guide

Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 867,676 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 September 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 Hitachi Content Platform is 1.6%, down from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 17.8%, down from 22.5% 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	17.8%
Pure Storage FlashBlade	5.7%
Hitachi Content Platform	1.6%
Other	74.9%

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

Mir Gulzar Ahmed

IT Manager at Synergy Computers

Integrates well with existing systems but technical support for the platform needs improvement

While deployment is simple, it's not as simple as StorageGRID. The architecture is entirely different, even though the end product uses the same protocols. The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. Deployment isn't as centralized either. Although I've deployed Hitachi Content myself in our production head office for the VM team, even though it's simple, it wasn't completely straightforward. They still required my help with the initial configuration environment setup. So, it's not just simple; there are some tricky aspects. The environment is tricky, but if you understand it, configuration can be done quickly.

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."

"Using this solution has made our backups more reliable."

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

"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."

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

"It performs well and it is also very fast."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros

"Feature-wise, it has a lot of features. The most valuable features include de-duplication, encryption, version controlling, support, and tamper-proof data."

"Companies can scale the solution."

"One of the most hidden valuable features is ensuring that you don't have bit rot, so it will go and check every single object that's stored on the system, then ensure that if there's a problem, it'll be repaired from either a local copy or remote copy, depending upon your configuration."

"Hitachi is a big company, so it's a very strong product."

"Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging."

"The main selling point is its compatibility with different environments. It functions like an on-prem Google Drive or Dropbox built on top of the object storage."

"As an architect, I like the management features that come with Hitachi Content Platform because it makes things easy."

"We are using Content Platform for data migration, and it integrates with our HNS platform. This is good because we can integrate it with our existing HNS and SAP solutions. The GUI is also user-friendly. It doesn't take much time to do anything. If we know the architecture and the steps, we can do what we need with a few clicks."

Cons

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

"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."

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

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

"There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket."

"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."

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

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

More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons

"The only thing is that it should be more cost effective."

"There is room for improvement in the capacity for integration with other platforms."

"In terms of the customer support, I can say it's a mixed reaction depending on the country."

"They could improve compatibility and offer a more user-friendly GUI."

"What is lacking in this solution is a simple process to migrate from existing systems."

"The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. So it can be more user-friendly."

"Hitachi Content Platform is a complicated solution. You need to put several pieces of the hardware together in order to achieve the capacity or the performance needed."

"This product's ability to track logs for access still needs to be improved."

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The product is very expensive."

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

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

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

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

"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."

More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"The pricing could be better."

"I think the ROI for this solution is very good because the pricing for it is in between other solutions."

"Pricing is comparable to other solutions in the market."

"The price of the Hitachi Content Platform is very high."

"Overall, it's costly."

"The product’s cost is average."

"Hitachi is more expensive than StorageGRID."

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

"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."

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

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

"There is no cost for software."

"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."

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

867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

Government

Computer Software Company

24%

Financial Services Firm

21%

Government

13%

Educational Organization

Computer Software Company

17%

Manufacturing Company

11%

Financial Services Firm

Educational Organization

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	4
Midsize Enterprise	6
Large Enterprise	4

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?

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 Hitachi Content Platform?

Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging.

See all answers

What needs improvement with Hitachi Content Platform?

In comparison to competitors like Huawei, which can use all storage protocols in the same platform, Hitachi Content P...

See all answers

What is your primary use case for Hitachi Content Platform?

Mainly, from my project, Hitachi Content Platform is used for archiving. The customer is in banking, so they need to ...

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

Comparisons

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 20% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray 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 Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 27% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 23% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 17% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Hitachi Content Platform

Compared 9% of the time

More Hitachi Content Platform Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 39% 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

August 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Hitachi Content Platform

September 2025

Download Hitachi Content Platform product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

August 2025

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

No data available

HCP, Hitachi Vantara Content Platform, Hitachi Vantara HCP

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

Hitachi Content Platform is an object storage solution that enables IT organizations and cloud service providers to store, share, sync, protect, preserve, analyze and retrieve file data from a single system. It is more efficient, easier to use, and capable of handling much more data than traditional file storage solutions. HCP automates day-to-day IT operations like data protection and readily evolves to changes in scale, scope, applications, storage, server and cloud technologies over the life of data. In IT environements where data grows quickly or must live for years, decades or even indefinitely, these capabilities are invaluable.

Hitachi Vantara

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

Rabobank, Xinhua News Agency, Kremsm'ller Industrieanlagenbau KG, KSC Commercial Internet, AIS Group, Shanghai Interactive Television Co. Ltd (SiTV), China Telecom, Spin Master

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

July 2025

Free Report: Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about Hitachi Content Platform vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.

DOWNLOAD NOW

867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our Hitachi Content Platform 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.