We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two All-Flash Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It has benefited my organization because it has reduced time to insights."
"We're able to get higher-density workloads on the same infrastructure, and we have a smaller physical footprint. The performance is excellent – during our test the bottlenecks are never on the X array, it just keeps picking up the pace to match what you need. The real-time visibility is a differentiator in my opinion."
"The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"The Pure1 component is most valuable at this point in time when comparing it with EMC. Pure1 is where you can have your diagnostics in the cloud, so you can look at things from your mobile phone."
"It is very easy to install and configure. It has got excellent diagnostics. If you really need to see how the box is performing, the console gives you a lot of information. You can set thresholds as well as alerts based on the thresholds, which is a very powerful functionality. They are very proactive. They know how to monitor and manage the systems. They see a problem, and they are all over it before us. They see the problem before we see it, which is very good."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"What I really like about this program, is that it is easy to use and easy to configurate."
"FlashSystem offers proven technology in a compact package."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is SCM (Storage Class Memory), which has the lowest latency value in the storage industry."
"The installation is nice and easy."
"The compression and deduplication features are the most valuable."
"It is simple to make an update."
"Most of the features for the reduction in data compression are useful. It is also very easy to use and administer. Its performance is also good."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and performance."
"The performance is very good and we use this product to enhance our core system."
"We do a lot of in-house, application-dependent type things, where we find the different niches to the different things. Certain things they do better. We've found that it actually does very well on some of our higher-end applications."
"The solution allows us to segregate one storage unit from another."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to set a specific margin of performance to a specific workload."
"I would have to say performance at this point, because the application it is based on is so diverse."
"The main advantage of this solution is performance."
"The replication and mirroring features are very good."
"Rapid deployment, easy integration management and cloning of areas."
"The management software is very good."
"We have run into a couple of instances recently where we are running out of space. So we have had to buy some more packs for it and they have deployed fine and it has increased smoothly."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"I want to see Pure Storage not only be for fast storage, but I want to see it be for the entire data center."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"You cannot tag a LUN with a description, and that should be improved. What I like on the Unity side is that when I expand LUNs or do things, there is an information field on the LUN. This is the Information field that you can tag on your LUNs to let yourself know, "Hey, I've added this much space on this date". Pure lacks that ability. So, you don't have a mechanism that's friendly for tracking your data expansions on the LUN and for adding any additional information. That's a downside for me."
"I'd like to see the product implement active replication for vehicles such as VMware."
"We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency."
"We need better data deduplication."
"The price is very costly."
"The technical support in my region is satisfactory but it could improve. Support is very important for customers and downtime is very critical for us. We would like onsite or complete technical support which can help us to minimize our downtime or if problems occur."
"Customization features must be improved."
"Events/log analysis tools."
"A big area for improvement is that the data reduction pool feature is not recommended for use in a production environment because it has stability and performance issues."
"The solution's infrastructure technology level could be PCI Express 5 instead of PCI Express 4 for the next version."
"I would like to have a larger disk. Right now, you can get 57 terabytes in a shelf. Once they get the larger disk and you get larger capacities, it'll be even better."
"The generic functionality of IBM FlashSystem, IBM always dismisses using file share or sharing protocols inside their storage hardware, and they only focus on the block-level storage."
"This solution has limited storage."
"The dashboard could be simplified."
"I would like to have the ability to replicate data between All Flash and other NetApp storage systems."
"They could improve overall scalability through performance. Denser capacity, which is doable, it is what the competition is doing."
"Better integration with other brands is important so we would like to see it easier to integrate."
"We need a center related to NetApp in Egypt so that we can deal with them directly."
"Their problems are on the software and the controlling of the storage where they lack segmentation and federation."
"The initial setup phase of NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is not straightforward and needs improvement."
More NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 6th in All-Flash Storage with 106 reviews while NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is ranked 23rd in All-Flash Storage with 38 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays writes "A storage solution that offers great stability, resilience, and support". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell Unity XT and NetApp AFF, whereas NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and HPE Primera. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage 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.
