Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

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 #7 with an average rating of 9.0, while Red Hat is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.8. IBM holds a 1.1% mindshare in FaOS, compared to Red Hat’s 20.6% mindshare. Additionally, 87% of IBM users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 81% of Red Hat users who would recommend it.
IBM Cloud Object Storage
Read 8 IBM Cloud Object Storage reviews
  • 1,295 Views
  • 826 Comparison Views
87% willing to recommend
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Read 25 Red Hat Ceph Storage reviews
  • 12,837 Views
  • 11,275 Comparison Views
81% willing to recommend
 

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.

DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
To learn more, read our detailed IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage Report (Updated: March 2025).
Buyer's Guide
IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage
March 2025
Download the complete report
Helped 842,296 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

IBM Cloud Object Storage
Ranking in File and Object Storage
7th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Ranking in File and Object Storage
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
25
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of March 2025, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of IBM Cloud Object Storage is 1.1%, down from 2.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 20.6%, down from 22.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
File and Object Storage
 

Featured Reviews

Steve Qualls - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers the ease with which you can move data between on-premises storage and the cloud and then retrieve it back on-premises when necessary
IBM Cloud Object Storage supports big data and analytics workflows. However, I usually have to refer to my documentation for that. Cloud environments are part of almost every project I've been involved in over the last few years, but I rely heavily on documentation whenever I need to do anything in the cloud. I know the basics, but the technical details always need refreshing. I create the drawings or diagrams of how the on-premises and cloud environments interact. So, visual representations are helpful. I'll diagram the on-premises environment, the cloud environment, and any appliances in between and then work from there. The integration capabilities simplified our data workflows. Like, the integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments.
Read full review
ANDRE VINICIUS HAMERSKI - PeerSpot reviewer
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

"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 most valuable feature I like is when you connect it via CLI plug-in...It is a stable solution."
"IBM Cloud Object Storage integrates well."
"Overall, I rate IBM Cloud Object Storage a ten out of ten."
"The integration itself is pretty easy. The access appliances create the connection between both environments."
"The capability to replicate data in different locations is valuable since it enables customers to have a cluster over various sites."
"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 community support is very good."
"We have not encountered any stability issues for the product."
"We are using Ceph internal inexpensive disk and data redundancy without spending extra money on external storage."
"Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"The most valuable feature is the stability of the product."
"Without any extra costs, I was able to provide a redundant environment."
"radosgw and librados provide a simple integration with clone, snapshots, and other functions that aid in data integrity."
"It's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
More Red Hat Ceph Storage pros
 

Cons

"The performance could be better. It isn't bad, but everything is network-based, so you have a performance penalty on the network. You can never achieve the same performance as hardware. That's the disadvantage of cloud storage solutions in general. Cloud performance is one of the main issues clients have."
"One improvement could be incorporating a feature similar to Dropbox's version history. This would allow users to track modifications made to files over time, which is particularly important for maintaining a record of changes. While the free version might not include this feature, it could be included in the paid version to provide added value to clients. Additionally, having a version history feature that allows users to access modifications made to files over the past three months could be beneficial."
"IBM has limited cloud storage."
"IBM Cloud storage is not cheap, but it could be."
"Sometimes technical support lacks a comprehensive understanding of the entire solution, only focusing on the product they support."
"The performance could improve in IBM Cloud Object Storage. The throughput or objects per second can have degradation."
"One area where IBM Cloud Object Storage could potentially improve is in modernizing its underlying codebase."
"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."
More IBM Cloud Object Storage cons
"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."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"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."
"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete. You will meet all kind of bugs and errors trying to install the system for the first time. It requires very experienced personnel to support and keep the system in working condition, and install all necessary packets."
"It would be nice to have a notification feature whenever an important action is completed."
"While the documentation for Ceph Storage is helpful, it could be improved."
"Some documentation is very hard to find."
More Red Hat Ceph Storage cons
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Pricing is not cheap."
"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."
"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."
"We never used the paid support."
"The price of this product isn't high."
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
"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 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."
"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
report
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
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Educational Organization
39%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
5%
Computer Software Company
18%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

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?
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. I pre...
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?
I have not identified any drawbacks, however, the response to public platform inquiries could be faster.
See all answers
 

Comparisons

MinIO vs IBM Cloud Object Storage Logo
MinIO vs IBM Cloud Object Storage
Compared 26% of the time
Dell ECS vs IBM Cloud Object Storage Logo
Dell ECS vs IBM Cloud Object Storage
Compared 23% of the time
NetApp StorageGRID vs IBM Cloud Object Storage Logo
NetApp StorageGRID vs IBM Cloud Object Storage
Compared 10% of the time
Cloudian HyperStore vs IBM Cloud Object Storage Logo
Cloudian HyperStore vs IBM Cloud Object Storage
Compared 7% of the time
IBM Spectrum Scale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage Logo
IBM Spectrum Scale vs IBM Cloud Object Storage
Compared 7% of the time
More IBM Cloud Object Storage Competitors
MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
MinIO vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 43% of the time
VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
VMware vSAN vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 6% of the time
NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 5% of the time
Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
Dell PowerFlex vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 3% of the time
Pure Storage FlashBlade vs Red Hat Ceph Storage Logo
Pure Storage FlashBlade vs Red Hat Ceph Storage
Compared 3% of the time
More Red Hat Ceph Storage Competitors
 

Product Reports

Buyer's Guide
IBM Cloud Object Storage
March 2025
IBM Cloud Object Storage reportDownload IBM Cloud Object Storage product report
Buyer's Guide
Software Defined Storage (SDS)
March 2025
Red Hat Ceph Storage reportDownload Red Hat Ceph Storage product report
 

Also Known As

Cleversafe
Ceph
 

Overview

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

Bitly, Dreamstime, Prime Research
Dell, DreamHost
Buyer's Guide
IBM Cloud Object Storage vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage
March 2025
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 2025.
DOWNLOAD NOW
842,296 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.