No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Qumulo vs Red Hat Ceph Storage comparison

Why PeerSpot?
Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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 FlashArray
Sponsored
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.2
Number of Reviews
233
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (2nd)
Qumulo
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
16
Ranking in other categories
NAS (6th), File and Object Storage (10th)
Red Hat Ceph Storage
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
27
Ranking in other categories
Software Defined Storage (SDS) (3rd), File and Object Storage (2nd)
 

Featured Reviews

Sowjanya MV - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Lead at Wipro Limited
Has improved performance for mission-critical workloads and enabled seamless non-disruptive upgrades
The availability is 99.99%, which is the main factor any customer would need because their data should be available whenever they want to access it. This is one main critical thing. It is very easy to upgrade since Pure Storage FlashArray handles it well. Everything is non-disruptive now; previously, there were forklift shifts, but now that is not the case. Pure Storage FlashArray says no to forklift upgrades. Usually hardware requires downtime, but Pure Storage FlashArray has improved their footprint so that they are not asking for downtime; everything is just a non-disruptive activity, which is why customers are more inclined towards Pure Storage FlashArray. Customers want more of the models in their environment due to the performance they are giving, and everything is in one Pure1 Array console where we can view all the models on one page or just an orchestration tool. You don't miss anything; you have replication, notifications about replication, and details about which host groups replication is happening in and if that replication is successful or failed. On a daily basis, our purpose is to create volumes for infrastructure; our daily activities include creating volumes and mapping them to the host, doing any migrations from a VM, clearing the data stores, and carving the volumes to those VMs. One key factor is the data compression with a ratio of 5:1, focusing on space efficiency, inline deduplication, and the compression Pure Storage FlashArray works on; that is a major factor we can suggest to any customer. Analytical capabilities are crucial. Daily, we check the throughput and consumption, and Pure Storage FlashArray provides predictions for one year regarding usage. This prediction helps plan updates well ahead. For support, we just raise a case, and they follow up and get it done. There is also AI readiness, but with the model R2, we don't have much of that AI readiness. For others, we do have AI readiness that predicts capacity based on daily or monthly trends, enabling us to analyze how much space we need or if we need to expand the disk shelf. From an operational point of view, a good feature is that if you accidentally delete a volume, it will be retained in the destroyed state for the next twenty-four hours, which is not the same with any other vendor. I have worked in this storage domain for the past fifteen years, and this option is remarkable, benefiting any L1 or L2 engineer. Additionally, from a compliance perspective, Pure Storage FlashArray has REST APIs enabled. I have not explored automation much, but from a security standpoint, it is strong with encryption data. If you want to automate, you can easily integrate with all clouds and explore Pure Cloud for scheduling workloads, including volume creation. Customers find benefit in Pure Storage FlashArray's single management pane of glass due to the dual controller and active-active setup. If one of the controllers goes down, all workloads automatically shift to the other controller, ensuring their data is safe and accessible at all times. This is a highlighted feature that any customer desires because their data should always be accessible. For SAN workloads, we use Pure Storage FlashArray because for SAN FC fiber channel, we don't use it; we use NetApp for NAS activities. We have clearly split this, so SAN is for mission-critical applications, while network-attached storage handles file systems. This architecture helps us maximize the benefit from Pure Storage FlashArray due to the significant workloads from this giant retail client. From a footprint and energy consumption perspective, you can see energy consumption from the Pure1 storage portal on a daily basis, and it is very compact. The three models we use consume only three units, which is quite low. From a footprint and data center perspective, it doesn't occupy much space. As everything moves to cloud, there are requirements to avoid excess spending on data centers, and Pure Storage FlashArray is efficient in energy consumption and is environmentally friendly.
reviewer2536608 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solutions Architect at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees
UI has simplified pixel data insights and cost savings while hardware lifecycle still needs work
There is an option I would like to see. Instead of installing a separate Grafana server to get the telemetry data, why can we not set up the same capability in the UI itself? Then we could choose the retention period of the log and get everything inside the Qumulo dashboard itself, rather than installing a separate Grafana server, because we need to maintain a separate server to collect these metrics. There is one more needed improvement I noticed. If you compare Qumulo to Dell Isilon as a vendor, a patch update with Dell Isilon covers the hardware as well. In Qumulo, however, you have to maintain the hardware lifecycle and the software separately. This means every time you update your server, you have to update two entities: one is the hardware and the other is Qumulo. So it might be quite challenging. A great deal of time is also involved for an engineer to do both of these things, so I do not think Qumulo can directly integrate with the hardware so that we can update the Qumulo software together with the hardware patches. Right now, I do not have any other improvements needed for Qumulo that I have not mentioned yet.
Rifat Rahman - PeerSpot reviewer
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.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It helps to simplify storage. For most of our customers, when they move to Pure Storage, storage becomes an afterthought."
"It helps to simplify storage because it has an easy front-end to access everything."
"You can even review the devices from your phone. You don't need to be connected to your company's website or VPN to access alerts and reports. While you can't manage the devices using your phone, you can review all the important details about the machine."
"You can get your storage access within two minutes, which is great, because it is a lot quicker for our team to get the servers up and running."
"Their evergreen solution is probably the most needed in any industry, especially today in unprecedented times and supply chain issues, their evergreen solution is amazing."
"Data deduplication is one feature I found to be the most valuable in the tool...Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The zero latency and high IOPS utilization we observe with it are significantly better than other storage solutions."
"The most valuable feature of the FlashArray is Pure One, which provides a comprehensive overview of our entire storage environment."
"All in all, it's a very good product, resilient, with good performance and scalability that is pretty easy."
"Qumulo has positively impacted my organization with the scalability of size; we were at one petabyte and we were able to increase it to two petabytes, and increasing our storage from one to two petabytes was a smooth process and it was easy to increase size."
"The feature that I like most is the analytics part of the file system."
"Qumulo has positively impacted my organization by simplifying storage management while providing a single, scalable platform, reducing administrative efforts, making storage growth easier to manage, and allowing users to experience consistent performance."
"Overall, I would rate Qumulo a nine. I appreciate that it does snapshots, and you could use replication."
"The ratio of total operational cost to complexity versus feature set is very good."
"The most valuable feature of Qumulo is the ability to share files and reliability."
"The best feature I saw in Qumulo is that the UI itself is pretty easy to use."
"The scalability feature is used by all users and is critical for our operations."
"Ceph was chosen to maintain exact performance and capacity characteristics for customer cloud."
"The ability to provide block storage and object storage from the same storage cluster is very valuable for us."
"I really like that Red Hat Ceph Storage can be used as a total solution without any storage area network components."
"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."
"Most valuable features include replication and compression."
"Companies that can afford completely flash-based pipe servers should go for Ceph because it's a very performance-intensive, brilliant storage system, and I always recommend it to customers based on its benefits, performance, and scalability."
"Most of the features are beneficial and one does not stand out above the rest."
 

Cons

"The latest release contains bugs that shouldn't be in a production environment. Two incidents impacted our client, including hardware-related bugs. They need to be more cautious in testing before they release."
"Technical support needs improvement. With respect to them being able to respond, they're more marketing people, less technical."
"There are many features which need to be added, particularly on the replication side."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve by being more secure."
"In the next release of this solution, we would like to see automated copy data management for SQL Server."
"Automation could be simplified."
"Some services could be inserted directly into the SAN, so Pure Storage could complete with the HyperFlex."
"I have been primarily working with storage and have not fully explored other areas, but there is some room for improvement when it comes to performance reporting."
"In the next release, I would like to see the ability to have more control at a terminal level of the file system."
"The only thing I would like to see added to Qumulo is for the interface to improve visually, more in line with vCenter, but that is just my thought."
"Some services are not at par with competitors today, and services such as pricing, licensing, and reporting can be better."
"The solution could improve availability and improve data protection or data services such as compression of deduplication. In a future release, we'd like to have more cloud API integrations."
"Qumulo should continue to expand automation and orchestration capabilities."
"The support for iMac and protocols should be improved, not all features are available."
"The main hiccup, as I mentioned, is that the hardware lifecycle patch is the most critical issue."
"Some anti-theft permissions do not transfer well to Qumulo."
"Ceph Storage lacks RDMA support for inter-OSD communication. That is a huge loss in terms of performance."
"Areas of Red Hat Ceph Storage that have room for improvement include more promotion. Many people do not know about the Stratus case, which is one of the most reliable systems available in the world, but they are not aware that a system can keep working even if there is a hardware failure."
"The management features are pretty good, but they still have room for improvement."
"What could be improved in Red Hat Ceph Storage is its user interface or GUI."
"I've heard the integration with OpenShift is great, however, the licensing cost is excessively high."
"If troubleshooting is needed, the response should be faster."
"Rebalancing and recovery are a bit slow."
"Ceph is not a mature product at this time. Guides are misleading and incomplete."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There is an annual or perpetual license required for this solution."
"It's a good price point and it's a solid product for the price."
"Price is about the only thing that's wrong with it. A little bit better pricing would be great."
"We do not incur additional costs beyond the licensing fee."
"We purchased a license to use this solution and we pay for the storage ourselves."
"Because of the SSD, it is cheaper because I am not purchasing so many disks."
"In terms of other contemporary arrays, Pure is something you need to have a use case for, as it's not priced for you to buy one off-the-shelf. If you have a use case, heavy lift Oracle Databases, any type of noticeable virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI), or need low latency and high throughput, you should consider all-flash at least and probably Pure Storage."
"The solution is expensive."
"The price of Qumulo is reasonable."
"The price of the solution is in the middle range compared to others. We look at the price per terabyte."
"We never used the paid support."
"The price of Red Hat Ceph Storage is reasonable."
"Most of time, you can get Ceph with the OpenStack solution in a subscription​​ as a bundle.​"
"I rate the product’s pricing an eight out of ten."
"The operational overhead is higher compared to Azure because we own the hardware."
"There is no cost for software."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
8%
University
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
Comms Service Provider
10%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Computer Software Company
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business73
Midsize Enterprise38
Large Enterprise161
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business7
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise11
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business13
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise15
 

Questions from the Community

Which should I choose: HPE 3PAR StoreServ or Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series?
Both are great platforms, but if you are considering all flash solutions, I would recommend you to consider Pure Stor...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage FlashArray?
When comparing cost, I find that the cost is either the same or slightly higher, but that is returned by the ease of ...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
The only thing I think could be improved is price. The price is the main concern for our customers.
What needs improvement with Qumulo?
Qumulo can be improved but not necessarily; it was fairly smooth to set up, and the support is great and easy to mana...
What is your primary use case for Qumulo?
My main use case for Qumulo is asset data storage. When I was working at Mercury Filmworks, we used Qumulo to store o...
What advice do you have for others considering Qumulo?
I would rate Qumulo a nine on a scale of 1 to 10. I rate it a nine because the cost is what keeps it from being a ten...
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 ...
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...
What advice do you have for others considering Red Hat Ceph Storage?
I do not have experience working with solutions such as Red Hat Ceph Storage and StorPool. I have plenty of experienc...
 

Also Known As

Pure Storage FlashArray
No data available
Ceph
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
County of Riverside Sheriff Department, Hyundai Mobis Automotive North America, University of Arizona, UCSD - San Diego Supercomputer Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Sinclair Oil, Royal Dutch Shell, Kaiser Permanente, Deluxe Creative, Vexcel Imaging, University of Florida, The Madison Square Garden Company, Arizona State University, Cinesite, San Diego Padres Baseball, Johns Hopkins University - School of Medicine, IHME, EllieMae, Washington State University.
Dell, DreamHost
Find out what your peers are saying about Qumulo vs. Red Hat Ceph Storage and other solutions. Updated: September 2026.
920,769 professionals have used our research since 2012.