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

NetApp StorageGRID vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
NetApp StorageGRID support is efficient with minor gaps, while some users find Hitachi support superior in expertise occasionally.
No sentiment score available
Opinions on Red Hat Ceph Storage support vary; some value it, others prefer community forums or internal solutions.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
4.4
NetApp StorageGRID's interface and integration are challenging, with high costs and complex configuration, needing efficiency and competitive improvements.
Sentiment score
4.1
Red Hat Ceph Storage faces challenges in performance, usability, documentation, integration, and resource optimization, needing various improvements.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.2
NetApp StorageGRID offers seamless scalability and integration for enterprises, efficiently handling large data volumes with flexible model options.
Sentiment score
6.4
Red Hat Ceph Storage scales well with user feedback, though latency and planning challenges require consideration and deployment tools.
 

Setup Cost

No sentiment score available
NetApp StorageGRID offers flexible, enterprise-level storage with high initial costs but long-term savings, ideal for large-scale environments.
No sentiment score available
Enterprise buyers appreciated Red Hat Ceph Storage's reasonable pricing and flexible licensing, with the option for support depending on expertise.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.9
NetApp StorageGRID is highly stable and reliable, with minimal failures, effective support, and consistent data availability, satisfying users.
Sentiment score
8.7
Red Hat Ceph Storage is highly reliable and stable, with minor issues in data rebalancing, latency, and recovery.
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.5
NetApp StorageGRID offers efficient storage solutions with fast recovery, easy manageability, enhanced security, and improved data retention and durability.
No sentiment score available
Red Hat Ceph Storage provides scalable, reliable, and flexible storage solutions with self-healing architecture and easy integration for various needs.
 

Categories and Ranking

NetApp StorageGRID
Ranking in File and Object Storage
7th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.8
Number of Reviews
13
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
6.2
Number of Reviews
22
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the File and Object Storage category, the mindshare of NetApp StorageGRID is 5.2%, up from 4.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Red Hat Ceph Storage is 22.7%, down from 23.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
File and Object Storage
 

Featured Reviews

Werner Broekhuizen - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides seamless data integration and has a reliable technical support team
The platform is highly scalable, allowing easy addition of enclosures and drives, making it non-disruptive and straightforward to expand as needed. It was originally hardware-agnostic, and its integration into NetApp has maintained this scalable nature, allowing for growth without compromising existing infrastructure. Its scalability is around an eight out of ten. It can handle large-scale and unstructured data needs. Its ability to manage significant volumes of data effectively makes it suitable for enterprises requiring robust storage solutions.
Soner BÜYÜKATALAY - PeerSpot reviewer
Provides efficient stability and archive storage features, but its maintenance process needs improvement
Red Hat Ceph Storage is difficult to maintain. We use CLI tools for maintenance, and the concept seems challenging. Additionally, it is difficult to expand the product due to balancing errors. It takes some time to re-balance the storage in case of server failure. They could improve the speed of the process.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Manufacturing Company
20%
Computer Software Company
17%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
19%
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 NetApp StorageGRID?
The management portals have most significantly improved our data retrieval times. They've made it much easier to restore data compared to our previous methods.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NetApp StorageGRID?
I rate the product pricing around five out of ten—it's negotiable, depending on the circumstances.
What needs improvement with NetApp StorageGRID?
The product's continual innovation and enhancement in integration capabilities with other NetApp solutions could be better.
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...
What do you like most about Red Hat Ceph Storage?
The high availability of the solution is important to us.
What needs improvement with Red Hat Ceph Storage?
Some documentation is very hard to find. The documentation must be quickly available.
 

Also Known As

Storage GRID
Ceph
 

Learn More

 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

ASE, DARZ GmbH
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp StorageGRID vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.