NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is recognized for delivering low latency and reliable management interfaces. It provides stability, encryption, and easy initial setup, with management tools including APIs, GUI, and CLI. Users value its efficiency in data handling and rapid response times.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| NetApp NVMe AFF A800 | 2.8% |
| Dell PowerStore | 14.6% |
| NetApp AFF | 12.1% |
| Other | 70.5% |
| Type | Title | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Product | Reviews, tips, and advice from real users | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | NetApp NVMe AFF A800 vs Dell PowerStore | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | NetApp NVMe AFF A800 vs NetApp AFF | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | NetApp NVMe AFF A800 vs Dell PowerMax | Jun 22, 2026 | Download |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dell PowerStore | 4.4 | 14.6% | 97% | 220 interviewsAdd to research |
| Everpure FlashArray | 4.5 | N/A | 99% | 231 interviewsAdd to research |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 1 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 2 |
| Large Enterprise | 8 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 50 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 24 |
| Large Enterprise | 53 |
The NetApp NVMe AFF A800 has earned recognition for its low latency, rapid input/output operations, and reliable management interfaces. It's appreciated for straightforward setup, encryption, and mature management tools that offer versatility in APIs, GUI, and CLI. Users find it enhances application performance with efficient data handling and quicker response times. Its flexibility in handling storage capabilities is an asset, yet it requires improvements in terms of cost, dashboard usability, and technical support. Additionally, performance lacks behind competitors in raw IOPS and the architecture is not optimized for high parallelism, with integration into hybrid cloud systems needing enhancement.
What are the standout features?NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is tailored for use in databases, video surveillance, and comprehensive enterprise applications. It finds application in data centers, transaction systems, mail infrastructures, and virtual environments, supporting Oracle and providing data security. Its use extends to high-performance computing in research, VMware support, and cloud storage, effectively serving as SAN or NAS, and supporting application servers and clusters tailored to enterprise demands.
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| IT Director at affidea | 5.0 | We've used the NetApp NVMe AFF A800 for storage and backup with strong performance, stability, and support; while the dashboard could be more user-friendly, overall it meets our needs effectively and I’d rate it a 10. |
| Country Information Technology Manager at Affidea | 4.5 | I've used NetApp NVMe AFF A800 for four years and found it stable, scalable, and performance-enhancing, with fast response times and a user-friendly interface, though cloud integration could improve. ROI was realized in 18 months. |
| Programmer Analyst at a university with 10,001+ employees | 4.5 | In our enterprise, the NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is valued for its reliable and easy-to-manage interface, though it lacks the raw speed and cost efficiency of competitors. We see ROI by selecting projects where its management excels. |
| Chief Technical Office at a comms service provider with 201-500 employees | 4.0 | I use the NetApp NVMe AFF A800 for cloud storage due to its fast I/O capabilities. While the product generally performs well, it could improve in overall performance. I am not considering other solutions or expecting additional features. |
| IT Consultant at Effegibi | 4.0 | I used the NetApp NVMe AFF A800 in a database cluster for a tech application. Its reliability is impressive, but stability needs improvement to prevent data loss. Overall, it serves well despite lacking in areas crucial for data security. |
| Engineering Manager, R&D at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I found the NetApp NVMe AFF A800 to be excellent for data center storage, effectively securing data and handling applications like Oracle. Its user-friendly interface simplifies daily operations. I've utilized it with Amazon Web Services, appreciating its solid technology. |
| Diretor Comercial at a security firm with 1,001-5,000 employees | 4.0 | In our virtualized environment, the NetApp NVMe AFF A800 offers low latency, which we find most valuable. However, we see room for improvement in technical support and pricing. We didn't consider alternative solutions before its deployment. |
| Commercial Director at MUK | 4.5 | In our review of the NetApp NVMe AFF A800, we found its storage features valuable for supporting various projects, transaction systems, and mail infrastructure. However, there were no specific areas for improvement or alternative solutions considered in our use case. |
| service engineer at a energy/utilities company with 1,001-5,000 employees | 5.0 | As an implementer, I find NetApp NVMe AFF A800 very stable and scalable, rating it 10/10. Installation is straightforward, though customer readiness affects deployment. I'd suggest increasing RAM and including physical cords. |
| Director Global Storage at a healthcare company with 10,001+ employees | 4.0 | I find this database solution flexible, stable, and easy to use with excellent scalability and customer support. The initial setup was straightforward. However, the product's high cost is its main drawback, making me rate it an eight out of ten. |
We continue with NetApp NVMe AFF A800. We are the client. It is used for storage and backup.
Regarding equipment models, we have hybrid storage with NVMe, SAS, and SSDs. We have three types of NetApp NVMe AFF A800 storage here. Two are NVMe and the oldest one is SAS and SSD.
We use it quite extensively because with this we have more space and the information can be read without wasting time. We are satisfied with this.
The performance is quite good. We don't have any issues regarding the applications that use fat clients.
It helps prevent being hacked, and so far we don't have any issues. We can do the encryption of the data.
The solution performs quite well. It helps us maintain our systems. Since we have many applications that use images for streaming, it works exceptionally well. We don't have any issues, and this helps us with the service we provide to the hospital.
For NVMe, the reporting and consolidation dashboard could be improved. The dashboard is not user-friendly. It should be more simplified.
We have been using it for quite a while. I have been here for two years, and I believe the solution has been in use for around four years.
We don't have any issues or problems with stability.
The scalability is satisfactory. We already had some challenges with escalating the volumes and adding more cabinets, but we discovered it is possible. We are satisfied with that.
We have a challenge here to determine if we should go on-premises or move to the cloud, but we are still evaluating that currently.
They help us when we have problems and the SLAs are satisfactory. They don't exceed the predicted SLA times, so that aspect is quite good.
Positive
We previously used solutions from EMC, Dell, and HP.
The setup was straightforward. We didn't have any problems with this. The implementation took around three weeks, no more than that.
The implementation was done by four people.
In terms of quality and price, it is quite good.
The solution is affordable.
It's not in our pipeline currently. We participate in workshops with NetApp NVMe AFF A800. We have a workshop that will be conducted in the next weeks here in Portugal, in Lisbon, and we already have two technicians who will attend to discuss with them.
The organization has around 1,000 people.
On a scale of 1-10, I rate this solution a 10.
The primary use cases for NetApp NVMe AFF A800 are for the application servers that we have.
The features I find most valuable in NetApp NVMe AFF A800 include the part of doing the tiering.
NetApp NVMe AFF A800 has helped in enhancing my application performance.
In terms of metrics, I have observed that the latency with NetApp NVMe AFF A800 decreased significantly for us, with the response to read and write being faster, and we are satisfied with the applications.
The integration with cloud ecosystems has not effectively supported our hybrid cloud deployments as we use directly the provider, not the hybrid cloud.
I don't have any add-on to suggest for improvement, but in my opinion, the NetApp NVMe AFF A800 product is pretty good.
I am satisfied with what I have in NetApp NVMe AFF A800 and don't require additional features in the next release.
They should promote NetApp NVMe AFF A800 more for other clients in my region.
I have been working with NetApp NVMe AFF A800 for almost four years.
The deployment was straightforward.
The SnapMirror solution has helped in maintaining data integrity across my environments by making us more robust, and we don't have any issues or problems with the data integrity that we use currently.
Regarding the end-to-end NVMe architecture of NetApp NVMe AFF A800, I don't have any issues and am satisfied with its performance.
I find that NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is a scalable product, and we are satisfied with that as we have already increased our capacity.
My experience with their technical support for NetApp NVMe AFF A800 has been very professional, and I don't have any complaints regarding that.
I have seen a return on investment with NetApp NVMe AFF A800.
It took approximately 18 months to see ROI with NetApp NVMe AFF A800.
The pricing of NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is good currently, so I don't have any issues regarding the pricing.
I have used the mirroring feature of the SnapMirror and SnapVault data protection features.
The interface of NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is user-friendly, and we are satisfied with that.
I would recommend NetApp NVMe AFF A800 to others.
On a scale of 1-10, I rate NetApp NVMe AFF A800 a 9.
In our enterprise, we support high-performance computing for academic research. So our flash systems are used for scratch temporary job data. We also use them for VMware support in our VMware enterprise infrastructure.
This solution allowed us to migrate all of our VMware infrastructure from direct-attached storage to NFS, which is hypothetically slower. But the ability to expand infinitely and quickly has been very important to us. So, for the VMware side, it's been very convenient. If we need another 50 terabytes or 100 terabytes of space, we just add it to our NetApp volumes, increase the export size to the VMware cluster, and we have more space. It's very easy for our VMware administrators.
And for the cluster side, it's just flash. It's NFS. We use it for NFS v3, v4, v4.1. It's a relatively quick NFS-based data store. That's what NetApp is really for. It serves NFS.
The most valuable feature is the solution's very well-defined and mature management interface. Their APIs, the GUI, and the CLI are very well thought out and consistent. So for us, it's really the management. It might not be the fastest solution out there, but it's extremely reliable and easy to administer. It requires very little personnel time.
Cost and speed are the biggest concerns. NetApp systems they're not slow, but they don't match the raw IOPs of some other parallel file systems design. The underlying architecture of the NetApp system isn't as conducive to pure raw speed, whether it's data I/O or metadata I/O, compared to some of their competitors. So that's a significant weakness. And they're extremely expensive. But that expense is justified in terms of management.
Cost and speed are the biggest concerns. The AFF A800 is an all-flash array, so it's not slow, but it doesn't match the raw IOPS of some other file systems that are designed for high parallelism. The underlying architecture of the AFF A800 is not as well-suited for pure raw speed, whether it's data I/O or metadata I/O. This is a significant weakness compared to some of the competition. And of course, the AFF A800 is also very expensive.
There are many features I'd like to see included, but most of them are niche features related to our use of QTree or other specialized aspects. There could be more types of migrations that can be done through the management interface, rather than relying on a client.
We have an AFF A800, and AFF A200. We've been using the AFF all-flash arrays for about five years.
I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. We're achieving five nines at least.
Scalability is relative. For example, if you need 500 petabytes, you're going to rate it as a two or something. For a moderate-sized enterprise or educational institution like where I work, I'd probably rate it as a seven out of ten.
You have to upgrade in increments, and it's not completely linear. There are some limits to namespaces and such. Nevertheless, I have expanded the system numerous times to a multi-petabyte system with minimal effort.
Sometimes, it takes a while to get somebody competent on the other end of the line. They do have engineers in multiple time zones around the world. However, their level-one support is not always the best.
Neutral
The initial setup was very straightforward.
When we make a new NetApp purchase, a NetApp representative comes in and installs all the equipment. In fact, it's so easy for me personally that I handle most of the software deployment myself. NetApp is willing to do that.
But, we do have a very strong VAR that we work with. In the past, we purchased directly from the NetApp Factory, basically. And a couple of years ago, we moved to working with the VAR. They provide excellent support. But the system itself, I feel comfortable making major architectural changes to the system on my own just because they have very good documentation. Their support is good if you find the right person. And, the robustness of their CLI, API, and GUI is so great that I feel very comfortable making changes to it. So, it's very, very easy to deploy and maintain.
We have seen an ROI because we choose our use cases carefully. For example, for an academic institution, affording petabytes of all-flash storage from NetApp is not feasible.
However, we can afford it from some of their competitors. So, we choose NetApp, where their management is most applicable and where we don't need massive amounts of data. We have seven petabytes of NetApp spinning disks, but we couldn't afford to do that with Flash. Some competitors make it more affordable to have an all-flash system. So it's about choosing where you get the ROI.
I would suggest to look at the ROI. If you need something that's extremely reliable, very easy to manage, has fantastic support from the vendor, and you can afford it, I would definitely recommend it. Unless all your requirements are solely based on throughput, it may not be the solution for you. But if you need something that you can manage with a minimal number of people and it's going to provide you with an extremely reliable, well-supported, and robust infrastructure, then I would definitely recommend it.
For us, reliability is the most important aspect. I'd have to give this solution a nine out of ten. Over the eight years we've been using NetApp with ONTAP, we've never lost a bit of data, and we've only experienced a few minutes of downtime in that entire time.
My company uses NetApp NVMe AFF A800 as storage for our cloud.
The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a product that is fast and provides a fast I/O.
The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better.
I don't expect to see additional features in the solution.
I have been using NetApp NVMe AFF A800 for a year and a half.
I don't remember the exact model number of the solution.
There was one technical issue with the product, but NetApp solved it.
Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
My company has around 200 employees.
I have experience with the solution's technical support. I rate the technical support a nine out of ten.
Positive
The product's initial setup phase was a bit difficult as it took time.
The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.
The product's installation phase was carried out with the help of a local partner of the solution.
Though NetApp NVMe AFF A800 may seem like a highly-priced product, it is not extremely expensive.
I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.
We used it as a cluster with a database when I was working in a technology-related field to sell the company's application. It was essentially a cluster and a service on HTML or the world wide web.
During the use cases of the solution, its reliability and suitability are the best. It's more important.
Stability is an area with a certain shortcoming where the solution needs to improve. Stability is very important so that you don't lose your data.
The solution is stable. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
Regarding scalability, the solution is not more on the on-premises version since it is more on the cloud version, and it is now on an AWS cloud. So, it was better to change completely and go to the cloud solution. However, I don't exactly know what kind of scalability it has.
I don't know how many users were using the solution since there were users using it worldwide. So, that's the reason it is on the cloud.
I don't follow the projects concerning my organization's plans to increase the use of the solution.
very good
I don't remember about the setup phase since when I arrived, it was already in the organization.
Since the solution is always running where I work, I never got involved in trying to figure out its costs.
My recommendation of the product to others depends on the project, the solution needed, and the budget of the customer.
I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.
NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is mainly used for data center storage. It is very good. It can handle applications well, such as Oracle, or any other application. It is good at keeping all types of data secure. It has a great security layer.
NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is easier to use than some other solutions and the UI is very good to use for day-to-day activities. Overall, the solution has good technology.
The solution is stable and it allows performance tuning in a secure environment in the datacentre.
The scalability of the solution is good and they are now competing with EMC.
We have approximately100 people using the solution in my organization and Approximately 10 are managers.
The support can take a few days to have a response. However, the response that we do receive is very informative.
Positive
There were some challenges with the initial installation in the data center. However, once installed it was user-friendly.
The implementation of the solution timeframe depends on many factors, such as configuring disaster recovery. We use a team to do it, there are many counterparts that are required to be coordinated. Mainly network infrastructure teams.
There are licenses for the use of this solution, such as commercial licenses.
We use the solution for our virtualized environment to manage our data.
NetApp NVMe AFF A800 has improved performance and access to the data.
Low latency is the most valuable feature.
The technical support has room for improvement.
The price has room for improvement.
I have been using the solution for four years.
The solution is stable.
The solution is scalable.
The technical support is not good.
The initial setup is straightforward.
The solution is expensive.
I give the solution an eight out of ten.
For people who want to have low latency and high performance, I recommend using NetApp NVMe AFF A800.
Our primary use case for this solution is different projects, transaction systems and mail infrastructure.
The storage features are valuable.
We have been using the solution for a while and are currently using NetApp version A800.
The solution is stable.
The solution is scalable.
We have had a good experience with customer service and support. I rate them a ten out of ten.
Positive
The initial setup is complex. It has a unified storage system and some functions we do not have in other storage systems. The deployment time and all the system storage are based on the project because it will make time from hours to weeks or even months to be distributed.
I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but the initial setup process can be improved. I recommend the solution to new users depending on their projects.
I am an implementer.
The use case depends on the customer and what their requirements are, and if they want to use it as a SAN or a NAS.
Increasing the RAM, and including physical cords would be beneficial.
I don't use NetApp NVMe AFF A800, I download it. I am installing and implementing it for customers.
NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is a very stable product.
It's a scalable solution. You can easily scale up, and scale-out.
Technical support is very cooperative. They are on par with what I need.
We have AFF 800, and AFF 8700, AFF 2220, AFF 560, 80, and StorageGRID.
I'm working on all of the current NetApp platforms, such as the E-Series, ONTAP, and StorageGRID.
The most recent experience is with the AFF A220, which was the latest download.
It's a very straightforward installation and implementation. It's really very nice.
The time it takes for deployment is determined by several factors; it is not a simple, straightforward task because you must have a network ready from the customer's side and collaborate with the customer to develop a solution for his readiness of the site, such as the cabinet, networking, and cabling. Once everything is ready, it can take approximately one week to two weeks maximum.
We require two technicians for racking, and stacking.
I was doing some general research. I'm a NetApp employee, and I was going through and double-checking some thind to double-check the end of service, end of availability, and other such things for various storages here and there.
Make sure that everything is ready from the customer's side, such as the management network. If you're using SAN, make sure that this only is working parallel with the customer because you have to provide the VPNs from the storage and you must have the host also already.
I would rate NetApp NVMe AFF A800 a ten out of ten.
We primarily use this solution for the database.
The solution works well.
I can't think of any specific feature that stands out for me. There isn't one that I prefer above others.
The initial setup was pretty easy.
The ease of use of the solution if great.
We find the product to be very flexible.
I can't recall any shortcomings in the product. There aren't really any features that are lacking in any way.
The cost of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal if they could adjust it so that it's a but less.
I've been using the solution for seven years at this point. It's been a while. I have a good amount of experience with the product.
The solution is very stable. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze and there haven't been any bugs or glitches.
The product has been rather scalable. It's good. We don't have a problem with scaling if we need to. Other companies should be able to scale too.
Currently, we have hundreds of users on the product right now. Most are database administrators.
We may increase usage in the future.
I've dealt with technical support in the past, mostly for drive replacements or items of that nature. They've been very good in that respect. We're satisfied with the level of support we've been given as an organization. They are very responsive.
We also use IBM and HP among other solutions. However, we've never used another product for this particular use case.
The solution's initial setup was not complex at all. We found the process of the implementation to be very straightforward. It was easy to execute on.
The deployment took less than two weeks. It was a fairly quick process.
We don't really need to have any staff for maintenance.
We handled the process of the implementation completely in-house. We didn't require the assistance of an integrator or consultant.
We still have and use the solution, which means it is doing what it is supposed to do.
We find the pricing to be very high. We'd like the company to lower it a bit to make it more affordable. Right now, it's pretty expensive.
We pay for the solution on a yearly basis. I don't know the exact cost off the top of my head, however. It's my understanding that there are no costs above the standard licensing fee.
We're just customers and end-users. We don't have a business relationship with the company.
I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.
Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. The ease of use and flexibility are great, however, it loses points due to its relatively high cost.
