When assessing the two solutions, reviewers found GlusterFS easier to use, set up, and administer. Reviewers also preferred doing business with GlusterFS overall.
Reviewers felt that IBM Storage Ceph meets the needs of their business better than GlusterFS.
When comparing quality of ongoing product support, reviewers felt that IBM Storage Ceph is the preferred option.
For feature updates and roadmaps, our reviewers preferred the direction of IBM Storage Ceph over GlusterFS.
Pricing
Entry-Level Pricing
GlusterFS
No pricing available
IBM Storage Ceph
No pricing available
Free Trial
GlusterFS
No trial information available
IBM Storage Ceph
No trial information available
Ratings
Meets Requirements
8.5
22
8.8
16
Ease of Use
8.0
24
7.9
16
Ease of Setup
7.8
20
6.8
11
Ease of Admin
8.0
20
7.3
11
Quality of Support
7.6
15
8.2
13
Has the product been a good partner in doing business?
8.4
15
8.0
9
Product Direction (% positive)
4.4
23
10.0
15
Categories
Categories
Shared Categories
GlusterFS
IBM Storage Ceph
GlusterFS and IBM Storage Ceph are categorized as Runtime
With over 3 million reviews, we can provide the specific details that help you make an informed software buying decision for your business. Finding the right product is important, let us help.