Discover the top alternatives and competitors to IBM Cloud Object Storage based on the interviews we conducted with its users.
The top alternative solutions include Red Hat Ceph Storage, MinIO, and Dell PowerScale (Isilon).
The alternatives are sorted based on how often peers compare the solutions.
IBM Alternatives Report
Learn what solutions real users are comparing with IBM, and compare use cases, valuable features, and pricing.
Red Hat Ceph Storage offers a software-defined, open-source approach with cost-effective options for scalability and integration. In comparison, IBM Cloud Object Storage provides enhanced security features and integration with IBM's services, appealing to those needing managed services and comprehensive support.
Red Hat Ceph Storage offers flexible setup costs, while IBM Cloud Object Storage typically involves lower initial expenditures. Red Hat Ceph Storage is known for scalability, whereas IBM Cloud Object Storage focuses on cost efficiency.
Red Hat Ceph Storage offers flexible setup costs, while IBM Cloud Object Storage typically involves lower initial expenditures. Red Hat Ceph Storage is known for scalability, whereas IBM Cloud Object Storage focuses on cost efficiency.
IBM Cloud Object Storage offers scalable solutions and strong data protection with extensive support. In comparison, MinIO provides open-source flexibility and high-performance storage with community backing. Businesses may choose IBM for ease and support, while MinIO suits those valuing flexibility and cost-efficiency.
IBM Cloud Object Storage involves a higher initial setup cost, while MinIO offers a more budget-friendly setup option with minimal financial commitment required.
IBM Cloud Object Storage involves a higher initial setup cost, while MinIO offers a more budget-friendly setup option with minimal financial commitment required.
IBM Cloud Object Storage offers flexible, scalable storage ideal for efficient data management. In comparison, Dell PowerScale provides superior data analytics and seamless infrastructure integration, appealing to those with complex IT needs. IBM's cost-effectiveness contrasts Dell's higher ROI driven by performance and integration benefits.
IBM Cloud Object Storage offers budget-friendly pricing and strong support, ideal for cost-conscious enterprises. In comparison, Dell ECS provides advanced features and robust performance, suitable for those prioritizing functionality and a comprehensive solution for complex IT environments.
IBM Cloud Object Storage has a lower setup cost, while Dell ECS involves higher initial expenses, providing a choice between cost-effective deployment and potentially greater long-term value.
IBM Cloud Object Storage has a lower setup cost, while Dell ECS involves higher initial expenses, providing a choice between cost-effective deployment and potentially greater long-term value.
IBM Cloud Object Storage offers competitive pricing and strong integration, ideal for versatile data solutions. In comparison, Qumulo provides advanced features like real-time analytics, making it attractive for data-heavy environments despite its higher cost. Each caters to different priorities in cloud storage choices.
IBM Cloud Object Storage involves a flexible, usage-based setup cost, while Qumulo requires a more upfront investment. IBM's model is ideal for fluctuating workloads, contrasting with Qumulo's predictable, yet higher initial expense.
IBM Cloud Object Storage involves a flexible, usage-based setup cost, while Qumulo requires a more upfront investment. IBM's model is ideal for fluctuating workloads, contrasting with Qumulo's predictable, yet higher initial expense.
IBM Cloud Object Storage excels in competitive pricing and customer support, providing scalable and flexible data management. In comparison, NetApp StorageGRID offers advanced lifecycle management and data policy enforcement, appealing to users valuing integration and comprehensive features over cost considerations.
IBM Cloud Object Storage offers lower setup costs compared to NetApp StorageGRID, which has a more comprehensive initial investment. This difference affects budget allocations for new storage implementations.
IBM Cloud Object Storage offers lower setup costs compared to NetApp StorageGRID, which has a more comprehensive initial investment. This difference affects budget allocations for new storage implementations.
Scality RING offers flexible deployment options and a cost-effective pricing model attractive to budget-conscious tech buyers. In comparison, IBM Cloud Object Storage appeals to enterprises seeking advanced features and scalability, providing long-term value despite higher initial costs.
Scality RING has higher setup costs but offers more extensive customization options, while IBM Cloud Object Storage presents lower initial costs with quicker deployment capabilities.
Scality RING has higher setup costs but offers more extensive customization options, while IBM Cloud Object Storage presents lower initial costs with quicker deployment capabilities.
Cloudian HyperStore appeals with cost-effective scalability and integration. In comparison, IBM Cloud Object Storage delivers advanced analytics and AI for enhanced security. Cloudian's customer service is personalized, while IBM offers extensive support. Cloudian offers competitive pricing, contrasting with IBM's long-term value proposition.
Cloudian HyperStore presents a lower setup cost, making it appealing for cost-conscious users, while IBM Cloud Object Storage emphasizes a more comprehensive suite of features, reflected in its higher initial investment.
Cloudian HyperStore presents a lower setup cost, making it appealing for cost-conscious users, while IBM Cloud Object Storage emphasizes a more comprehensive suite of features, reflected in its higher initial investment.
IBM Cloud Object Storage is favored for its integration with AI and strong security features. In comparison, Hitachi Content Platform excels in advanced data management and scalability. While IBM's pricing is flexible, Hitachi may yield better long-term ROI despite higher initial costs.
IBM Cloud Object Storage's setup cost is typically lower, making it attractive for budget-conscious users. In contrast, Hitachi Content Platform often involves a higher initial investment, which some users find justified by its advanced features.
IBM Cloud Object Storage's setup cost is typically lower, making it attractive for budget-conscious users. In contrast, Hitachi Content Platform often involves a higher initial investment, which some users find justified by its advanced features.
IBM Cloud Object Storage attracts tech buyers with scalability, security, and cost-effectiveness. In comparison, Huawei FusionStorage intrigues those seeking advanced integration and performance despite higher costs. IBM's flexibility and support entice budget-conscious users, while Huawei's features appeal to innovation-focused businesses.
IBM Cloud Object Storage setup involves standard integration costs with flexibility, while Huawei FusionStorage requires a higher initial investment due to its complex deployment.
IBM Cloud Object Storage setup involves standard integration costs with flexibility, while Huawei FusionStorage requires a higher initial investment due to its complex deployment.
