LizardFS vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

LizardFS and Red Hat are both solutions in the Software Defined Storage (SDS) category. LizardFS is ranked #22, while Red Hat is ranked #2 with an average rating of 8.8. LizardFS holds a 1.8% mindshare in SDS, compared to Red Hat’s 18.4% mindshare. Additionally, 66% of LizardFS 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 Dec 5, 2024

Red Hat Ceph Storage and LizardFS are competing storage solutions in the enterprise data management sector. Red Hat Ceph Storage seems to have the upper hand due to its scalability and integration capabilities, while LizardFS stands out in simplicity and efficiency.

Features: Red Hat Ceph Storage offers massive scalability, supporting block, object, and file storage, making it ideal for enterprise deployments. It provides extensive integrations with various cloud and container platforms. Its flexibility allows for customizing storage solutions to meet specific needs. LizardFS values simplicity in its design, creating an easy-to-use interface that requires minimal technical knowledge. It provides an efficient distributed file system, ensuring robust data management without complexity. Adaptability to various storage needs allows LizardFS to fit diverse environments with ease.

Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Red Hat Ceph Storage requires significant technical expertise during deployment but offers comprehensive support that covers complex network environments efficiently. Its extensive documentation and expert consultation services make it suitable for organizations with complex needs. LizardFS offers a straightforward setup process, enabling faster deployment with less technical input. Its responsive customer service helps resolve issues quickly, providing a smooth experience for users without deep technical backgrounds.

Pricing and ROI: Red Hat Ceph Storage typically involves higher initial setup costs due to its enterprise-level configuration, but its ability to manage large-scale storage effectively promises substantial ROI. It appeals to organizations needing extensive storage solutions. LizardFS generally incurs lower setup costs, making it attractive for cost-conscious buyers. It offers a quicker potential for ROI by focusing on system efficiency and simplicity, which is ideal for environments prioritizing affordability.

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

Buyer's Guide

LizardFS vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

September 2025

Download the complete report

Helped 871,408 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 LizardFS is 1.8%, up from 1.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 18.4%, down from 20.7% 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%
LizardFS	1.8%
Other	75.7%

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

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

it_user504762

Lead solution architect at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees

Providing relatively cheap NAS solution with great scale-out functionality.

Management console - today it is managed via scripts and flat files which need to be synchronized among all master/shadow nodes in a cluster. There are severall possible problems in such approach: - it is possible to 'damage' config by mistake - it is required to copy modified config file to other servers (typically you change it on master server and populate this to other - shadow servers using scp). If one forgets this, shadow servers have incorrect/old config and in case the cluster failovers the new master service is using wrong config I would suggest to write a dedicated program or script which checks syntax and do all the changes in a proper way in background. It could look like this: to create new export: - lizard-admin create-export to modify: - lizard-admin modify-export etc.

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

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

871,408 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews

Computer Software Company

12%

Financial Services Firm

11%

Manufacturing Company

10%

Government

No data available

Computer Software Company

18%

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

No data available

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

Ask a question

Earn 20 points

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 19% of the time

Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 11% of the time

VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 7% of the time

Dell ObjectScale vs Pure Storage FlashBlade

Compared 5% of the time

More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors

Red Hat Gluster Storage vs LizardFS

Compared 46% of the time

More LizardFS 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

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

October 2025

Download Pure Storage FlashBlade product report

Buyer's Guide

Software Defined Storage (SDS)

October 2025

Download LizardFS product report

Buyer's Guide

Red Hat Ceph Storage

October 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

Software Defined Storage LizardFS is a distributed, scalable, fault-tolerant and highly available file system. It allows users to combine disk space located on many servers into a single name space which is visible on Unix-like and Windows systems in the same way as other file systems. SDS LizardFS makes files secure by keeping all the data in many replicas spread over available servers. It can also be used to build space-efficient storage, because it is designed to run on commodity hardware. Disk and server failures are handled transparently without any downtime or loss of data. If storage requirements grow, it's possible to scale an existing SDS LizardFS installation just by adding new servers _ at any time, without any downtime. The system will automatically move some data to newly added servers, because it continuously takes care of balancing disk usage across all connected nodes. Removing servers is just as easy as adding a new one.

LizardFS

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

Orange Polska, Platige Image, United State Department of Agriculture, Virtu Financial

Dell, DreamHost

Buyer's Guide

LizardFS vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

September 2025

Free Report: LizardFS vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage

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

DOWNLOAD NOW

871,408 professionals have used our research since 2012.

See our LizardFS vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage 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.