IBM Cloud Object Storage vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

IBM and Red Hat are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. IBM is ranked #12 with an average rating of 9.5, while Red Hat is ranked #1 with an average rating of 9.3. IBM holds a 1.4% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 13.2% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of IBM 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 IBM Cloud Object Storage both compete in the enterprise storage solutions category. IBM Cloud Object Storage holds the upper hand due to its advanced features and robust security, which justify its higher costs.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage provides excellent scalability and flexibility with integration into open-source ecosystems, making it adaptable for diverse deployments. It offers seamless integration with OpenStack and supports multiple storage types like block and object storage. IBM Cloud Object Storage features infinite capacity and strong data protection, making it ideal for sensitive transaction data. Its integration capabilities enable easy data movement between on-premises and cloud environments.

Room for Improvement: Red Hat Ceph Storage can improve in user interface simplicity, reducing complexity for new users. Enhanced support for hybrid cloud environments and more intuitive integration options would make it more competitive. IBM Cloud Object Storage could benefit from reducing initial costs and providing more customizability in data management. Improvements in usability for less technical users and streamlining its setup process would enhance its offering.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage allows flexible deployments with extensive community support but may pose challenges due to its complexity. IBM Cloud Object Storage offers a simpler deployment process with robust customer service through its established enterprise support channels, making it easier for enterprises to implement and maintain.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage is more cost-effective, primarily due to its open-source nature and lower setup costs, leading to faster ROI. IBM Cloud Object Storage, although requiring a larger initial investment, offers higher ROI potential through its advanced security features and reliability, making it a worthwhile option for businesses with stringent security requirements.

To learn more, read our detailed IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: March 2026).

Buyer's Guide

IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

March 2026

Download the complete report

Helped 886,719 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

Everpure FlashBlade

Mindshare comparison

As of April 2026, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of Everpure FlashBlade is 5.7%, down from 5.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM Cloud Object Storage is 1.4%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 13.2%, down from 20.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.

File and Object Storage Mindshare Distribution
Product	Mindshare (%)
Red Hat Ceph Storage	13.2%
Everpure FlashBlade	5.7%
IBM Cloud Object Storage	1.4%
Other	79.7%

File and Object Storage

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

reviewer2384904

Account Technology Specialist at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees

Enables seamless data replication and supports comprehensive data analytics workflows

The capability to replicate data in different locations is valuable since it enables customers to have a cluster over various sites. Also, important is the capability to provide RESTful APIs for custom connectors. In terms of security, I advise customers to rotate access keys to enhance protection. Additionally, scalability is effortless as you can add nodes or expand the license.

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

"The product is fantastic."

"I would recommend this solution to other interested companies because it's extremely fast."

"FlashBlade offers low latency, high throughput, and seamless scalability."

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

"As a Pure Storage platform, the cost-benefit is hugely based on the deduplication and capacity."

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

"For those who are interested in using this solution, I would recommend it."

"The fact that the solution is extremely stable and it works really great each dollar spent on this solution is worth it."

More Everpure FlashBlade pros

"The capability to replicate data in different locations is valuable since it enables customers to have a cluster over various sites."

"IBM has the most number of additional services, this is the main advantage."

"One of Cloud Object Storage's best features is infinite capacity."

"Overall, I rate IBM Cloud Object Storage a ten out of ten."

"One of Cloud Object Storage's best features is infinite capacity. This is one of the main advantages if you don't want to use your own storage. You also have the ability to write only, write once, and read many. It's like tape storage but software-based. This feature is essential for financial institutions that require that kind of protection if you write backup or data there."

"The standout feature of IBM Cloud Object Storage is its top-notch security, making it ideal for sensitive applications like mobile financial transactions."

"IBM has the most number of additional services, this is the main advantage."

"The most valuable feature I like is when you connect it via CLI plug-in...It is a stable solution."

More IBM Cloud Object Storage pros

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

"The community support is very good."

"We have some legacy servers that can be associated with this structure. With Ceph, we can rearrange these machines and reuse our investment."

"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."

"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."

"It's possible that we should have used the solution a long time ago as it appears to cost the business less money to run some of our data systems using it."

"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."

"The solution is pretty stable."

More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros

Cons

"The technical support needs to improve. When we open a case, it is auto assigned to a support tech person. Nine out of ten times, we get an email right back saying that person is off until tomorrow. I cannot handle that. They just did this over the weekend to us, too. I had to call our rep and have them do something about it."

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

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

"I would like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabyte."

"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."

"I have not seen ROI."

"The speed could be improved."

"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."

More Everpure FlashBlade cons

"Room for improvement depends on customer needs. Some customers prefer pure Object Storage using the S3 protocol, while others use a gateway in front of the storage grid to enable CIFS or NFS."

"The performance could improve in IBM Cloud Object Storage. The throughput or objects per second can have degradation."

"IBM Cloud storage is not cheap, but it could be."

"IBM has limited cloud storage."

"The performance could be better. You can never achieve the same performance as hardware, and cloud performance is one of the main issues clients have."

"If I had to choose one area, it would be making the consoles more intuitive would be helpful. Sometimes, they can be a little complicated if you're not familiar with them."

"One area where IBM Cloud Object Storage could potentially improve is in modernizing its underlying codebase."

"Sometimes technical support lacks a comprehensive understanding of the entire solution, only focusing on the product they support."

More IBM Cloud Object Storage cons

"We have encountered slight integration issues."

"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."

"While the documentation for Ceph Storage is helpful, it could be improved."

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

"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete."

"Please create a failback solution for OpenStack replication and maybe QoS to allow guaranteed IOPS."

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

More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons

Pricing and Cost Advice

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

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

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

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

"Support is a separate line item. Support is a different cost, but whatever your support is now, that's what you're going to pay forever. If your support's $100 today, six years from now it's $100. It doesn't fluctuate unless you upgrade it, or change it, etc."

"It's a costly solution, but Pure Storage FlashBlade doesn't require additional licenses. All of the software is combined into one bundle."

"The price could be cheaper."

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

More Everpure FlashBlade pricing and cost advice

"Pricing is not cheap."

"Like most cloud providers, IBM likely charges based on storage capacity, typically per gigabyte or terabyte. Their pricing is competitive when compared to AWS or Microsoft."

"You have the option of a monthly or yearly license. Most customers choose the monthly option. I understand what you would like to say. IBM also lets you choose among four types of Cloud Object Storage. The difference is usage, performance, etc. Of course, high-performance storage is more expensive, while low-performance storage is for cold data, and it's really cheap."

"IBM Cloud is cheaper than AWS. If you want to scale your cloud infrastructure, it can be bought at almost the same price."

"There is no cost for software."

"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."

"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 price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."

"We never used the paid support."

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

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

886,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Financial Services Firm

12%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Computer Software Company

Government

Financial Services Firm

21%

Computer Software Company

16%

Comms Service Provider

Manufacturing Company

Computer Software Company

13%

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	3
Midsize Enterprise	2
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?

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

What do you like most about IBM Cloud Object Storage?

The integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments.

See all answers

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM Cloud Object Storage?

In general, Object Storage should be a cheaper solution.

See all answers

What needs improvement with IBM Cloud Object Storage?

The interface can feel clunky and outdated compared to AWS S3 or Azure Blob Storage. While scalable, latency can be...

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 Everpure FlashBlade

Compared 16% of the time

VAST Data vs Everpure FlashBlade

Compared 8% of the time

MinIO vs Everpure FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

Everpure FlashArray vs Everpure FlashBlade

Compared 6% of the time

Qumulo vs Everpure FlashBlade

Compared 3% of the time

More Everpure FlashBlade Competitors

Dell ObjectScale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 15% of the time

MinIO vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 10% of the time

Hitachi Content Platform vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 7% of the time

Nutanix Unified Storage (NUS) vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 7% of the time

IBM Spectrum Scale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage

Compared 6% of the time

More IBM Cloud Object Storage Competitors

MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 46% of the time

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 3% of the time

Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 2% of the time

Microsoft Storage Spaces Direct vs Red Hat Ceph Storage

Compared 2% of the time

More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide

Everpure FlashBlade

April 2026

Download Everpure FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

IBM Cloud Object Storage

April 2026

Download IBM Cloud Object Storage product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

March 2026

Download Red Hat Ceph Storage product report

Also Known As

Pure Storage FlashBlade

Cleversafe

Ceph

Overview

Everpure Storage FlashBlade offers reliable and high-performance data management with ease of use, speed, and scalability. Its seamless integration ensures efficient data handling and management, addressing diverse industry needs.

Everpure Storage FlashBlade is designed to cater to demanding operational requirements, delivering high performance and low latency. Its simplicity in management, along with effective data replication, enhances usability. Predictive performance analytics, inline deduplication, and disaster recovery capabilities further enrich user experience. Despite its strengths, improvements are needed in public cloud integration, UI complexity, and documentation. Users suggest enhanced deduplication and hybrid solutions, better configurations, dashboard metrics, and S3 integration. Feedback also highlights the need for features like snapshots, expanded file storage, and performance upgrades.

What are the most important features of Everpure Storage FlashBlade?

Ease of Use: Simplifies data management with intuitive controls.
High Performance: Delivers exceptional speed for data-intensive tasks.
Scalability: Expands effortlessly to meet growing data demands.
Seamless Integration: Works well with existing systems for efficient operation.
Predictive Analytics: Provides insights to optimize performance proactively.
Inline Deduplication: Reduces storage footprint without compromising speed.
Disaster Recovery: Ensures data availability during disruptions.

What are the potential benefits or ROI in choosing Everpure Storage FlashBlade?

Cost-effectiveness: Provides exceptional performance at a competitive price point.
Minimal Maintenance: Reduces operational overhead with simple management.
Clear Dashboards: Enhances decision-making with accessible performance metrics.
Reliable Performance: Offers consistent output, critical for data-intensive industries.

In data center consolidation, media management, and PACS archiving, Everpure Storage FlashBlade meets specific industry needs. Companies in banking and healthcare leverage cost-effective performance and scalability for efficient data access, supporting AI training, big data analytics, and enterprise workloads with high IOPS requirements. Media and entertainment entities use it for video editing and storage management, benefiting from seamless NAS, file, and object storage.

Everpure (formerly Pure Storage)

IBM Cloud Object Storage is a web-scale platform that stores unstructured data - from petabyte to exabyte - with reliability, security, availability and disaster recovery without replication.

IBM

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

Bitly, Dreamstime, Prime Research

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

March 2026

Free Report: IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

Find out what your peers are saying about IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.

DOWNLOAD NOW

886,719 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our IBM Cloud Object Storage 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.