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

Arcserve OneXafe vs Azure Files comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
231
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (3rd)
Arcserve OneXafe
Average Rating
6.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Backup and Recovery (54th), File and Object Storage (25th)
Azure Files
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Storage (17th), File and Object Storage (24th)
 

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.
Sergio Itikawa - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Solutions Architect at SPEData
Has improved data reliability while requiring better pricing and localized support
The most valuable features of Arcserve OneXafe are improving persistent data, which I believe is very important. I use other products too, not only Arcserve OneXafe; we use TrueNAS as well. I have utilized Arcserve OneXafe's data deduplication feature. It helps my storage efficiency significantly. The product satisfaction with this product helps with storage efficiency. Regarding Arcserve OneXafe's immutable object storage helping against ransomware, the call was not clear, and I had difficulty listening to what was discussed. Arcserve OneXafe improves precision of data. I have used Arcserve OneXafe's continuous data protection. This is beneficial for operational continuity because we use it constantly. I have no objections to Arcserve OneXafe technology; I think that is very good.
Yogesh Autade - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Security Engineer at Softcell Technologies Limited
Centralized file sharing has improved security and compliance but still needs better analytics
From our experience, Azure Files could be improved with more granular performance visibility, simpler troubleshooting tools, and enhanced reporting around file shares, uses, and access patterns. We would also prefer more streamlined management for large-scale development deployments, better monitoring of SMB and NFS performance issues, and deeper integration of storage analytics to help identify bottlenecks and optimize cost efficiency. Another area where Azure Files could improve is the administrative experience for hybrid environments. More intuitive troubleshooting for authentication, SMB connectivity, and synchronization-related issues would help reduce operational efforts. Enhanced reporting, proactive recommendations, and clearer root cause analysis and diagnostics would also be valuable for storage and infrastructure teams managing large deployments.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Technical support has been amazing."
"The support from Pure Storage Flash Array is amazing."
"For me, right now, it is the best storage solution in the market, by far."
"It helps simplify storage. When you're running Pure all-flash, you don't have to do a lot of the old Oracle best practices. You don't have to worry about putting log files on a different disk channel than the data files, and those types of issues... That has made it vastly easier to do large volumes, rapid provisioning in databases, without taking a performance hit."
"The most valuable features are extremely low latency, high IOPS with VMware, inline deduplication and compression."
"The zero latency and high IOPS utilization we observe with it are significantly better than other storage solutions."
"It has improved the way our organization functions by improving the resilience of our infrastructure by quite a bit."
"It has a small footprint, as the current system is only four units per rack, it's got good speed for the price as it uses eMLC, an advanced type of SSD, and it's very scalable, and we're not paying for capacity as we get free controllers every three years."
"The simplicity and the ability to perform small backups are the most effective features for data protection in Arcserve OneXafe."
"The most valuable features of Arcserve OneXafe are improving persistent data, which I believe is very important, and I have utilized Arcserve OneXafe's data deduplication feature, which helps my storage efficiency significantly."
"We see a clear return on investment with Azure Files, primarily through reduced infrastructure management effort and improved operational efficiency."
"If we need to migrate data, Azure Files allows a seamless data migration."
 

Cons

"Reports of performance and LUN utilization could be improved."
"The initial setup of the product is complex."
"They need to find another way of doing data protection, RAID is not working very well."
"Technical support needs improvement. With respect to them being able to respond, they're more marketing people, less technical."
"Price per terabyte is substantially higher than their competition. We would like to see it drop."
"The integration capabilities could be improved."
"It is not possible to create a cluster on top of multiple arrays."
"I would like to see them develop the ability to integrate with more AWS services. There are increasingly more and more services coming out from AWS but there are also certain constraints where we can't move everything over to a cloud as well. We would like for things that are on-premise to be easily integrated with AWS."
"Arcserve OneXafe is not used in many cases in the market that we work in."
"The price is not the best; it is too high."
"The price is not the best; it is too high. It's not the best solution in terms of price, although the solution itself is good."
"I think if Azure Files could integrate migration using Storage Mover, that would be an improvement."
"From our experience, Azure Files could be improved with more granular performance visibility, simpler troubleshooting tools, and enhanced reporting around file shares, uses, and access patterns."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"I would rate it a seven out of ten for pricing. It could be improved."
"It is a more expensive solution, but it is worth it. You are getting what you paid for."
"There should be quite a bit of reduction of TCO with just licensing (and stuff) because we run the VM environment off it."
"For us, as the customer, it reduced the price of the management."
"In comparison to the competitors, Pure is very price-competitive for the future functionality that it provides."
"I'm good with the licensing. Of course, pricing can always be less... It's actually not a bad pricing model, considering I don't have to rip-and-replace."
"The guaranty that Pure Storage provides when you purchase it doesn't meet the overall capacity needs to provide extra storage, if needed. Thus, it is not meeting our expectations."
"Once you purchase Pure Storage FlashArray it is all-inclusive, you receive all the licenses needed."
Information not available
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Construction Company
10%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Construction Company
26%
Financial Services Firm
9%
Religious Institution
7%
Outsourcing Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business71
Midsize Enterprise38
Large Enterprise159
No data available
No data available
 

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?
I find the pricing of Everpure FlashArray to be quite high compared to other storage solutions; however, the reliabil...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
I believe we have covered the most important features; the architecture of Pure Storage is essential, and features su...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Arcserve OneXafe?
Regarding pricing and setup cost, my client said all the options are very expensive. Price is always a key point for ...
What needs improvement with Arcserve OneXafe?
There are areas that could be improved. We use other technologies for persistent data as well. So we depend on the op...
What is your primary use case for Arcserve OneXafe?
The main use case for this product is that I use a backup repository for persistent data. I use it exclusively for th...
What needs improvement with Azure Files?
From our experience, Azure Files could be improved with more granular performance visibility, simpler troubleshooting...
What is your primary use case for Azure Files?
Our primary use case for Azure Files is centralized file sharing, application data storage, and replacing traditional...
What advice do you have for others considering Azure Files?
I would recommend this product without hesitation. I would also recommend starting with a pilot workload to validate ...
 

Also Known As

Pure Storage FlashArray
StorageCraft OneBlox
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
Sonic, Amazon, Kawasaki, Callaway, Drake University, Mazda, Thales, California Highway Patrol, Guggenheim, Bruker, NASA, Oregon.gov
Information Not Available
Find out what your peers are saying about Arcserve OneXafe vs. Azure Files and other solutions. Updated: August 2026.
909,725 professionals have used our research since 2012.