Cloudian HyperStore vs Portworx Enterprise comparison

"The tool has S3 capability. Its scalability is excellent. From a security and encryption perspective, the solution supports SSL encryption. It is a seamless solution offering data encryption, quality service, and security encryption."

"Cloudian HyperStore is one hundred percent stable."

"The most valuable features are its scalability and Amazon S3 compatibility because we can move back and forth with a hybrid cloud."

"It is very durable and that is particularly important."

"Considering a customer's need for a cost-effective solution, Cloudian HyperStore fits well for data protection scenarios."

"The cost was the main reason we chose to use this solution."

"Portworx is a simple solution. It's similar to Pure Storage products. They're all easy to use and install. You need to have a little expertise with containers to use Portworx, but it will be no problem for you if you understand containers."

"Portworx virtualizes the aspects of the underlying block storage. That is good because they can also use block storage for their future deployment instead of just NFS."

"I like that you have a small dedicated file system that is fast and resilient for containerized workloads."

"The solution is user-friendly."

"A custom IBM script is designed to tackle the storage management challenges within containerized environments, providing crucial data services and features required for enterprise applications."

"The best thing about Portworx is the Stork, they have called the VPS (Volume Replacement Strategy) and they also have topology awareness, and these are the three features I like."

"As it is an S3 solution with the same protocol as the one we have with AWS, having better integration with AWS will be beneficial."

"Cloudian HyperStore needs to incorporate AI and predictive analysis. It would be helpful if the solution could analyze and predict how to manage data better. The end users should not have access to protected documents. They should be able to drop the documents. The capacity management dashboard can be better. We also want two-factor authentication using Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator as MFA. Hence, the user would access the console not just by logging in with a password and username but with third-party applications as well."

"It is a cloud-based environment and at times, it is not very simple to use."

"I think the vendor could provide more training for new users who may not be familiar with containers."

"They have not integrated Portworx with Ondat since they are too focused now on Pure Storage APIs and not on users like us."

"It would be highly advantageous to include an integrated backup solution within the same license, rather than purchasing backup separately."

"The documentation could be better."

"The integration has room for improvement."

"I would like to see a more native mapping to mainframe-type systems."

"Our fees are approximately half a dollar per gigabyte."

"The solution is cheap."

"It has two offerings. One is free, which is limited to only five nodes. The other is enterprise, which is a bit pricier."

"The price is competitive, but it is too expensive when paired with Red Hat IBM."

"The price of Portworx Enterprise is high."

"I'm not sure how the licensing was broken out, but I don't think our offering of the Portworx was more than USD $20,000."