Cohesity SmartFiles vs DataCore Swarm comparison

"It uses the same platform for connectivity so integration is seamless."

"I would rate this solution an eight plus. It has has good flexibility and stability, it's easy to manage and the response time is good."

"Speed and ease of use are the two most valuable features."

"The solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."

"It has also helped to simplify storage for us in the way that it's easy to manage. Their automatic monitoring really helps when things break or are about to break. They see a problem coming and alert us even before our own system does."

"It performs well and it is also very fast."

"We have seen a reduction in the total cost of ownership by around 20%."

"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."

"Cohesity SmartFiles aids in data management with features like full-text search through indexed documents."

"With DataCore Swarm, we have transitioned from tape-based backups, which were long, to Swarm, making the process more rapid and efficient."

"DataCore Swarm is highly available."

"The best features DataCore Swarm offers are its scalability and the ability to truly solve many problems related to data loss and recovery."

"I find its flexibility valuable."

"The first feature is compatibility with the S3 protocol. DataCore SWARM allows you to quickly have an on-premise, robust and scalable environment that is natively compatible with the S3 protocol. The functionalities used are therefore derived from the S3 protocol, notably versioning and therefore the possibility of configuring immutability in governance or compliance mode. The object metada can be enriched with the addition of tags to subsequently enable filtering and searching. Configuring and using DataCore SWARM is simple and flexible. It is very easy to create domains, tenants and buckets for different use cases with various authentications. The cluster architecture also allows replication between different clusters at different configured levels (Cluster / Domains / ...) A web interface for browsing the content of existing buckets allows simple and rapid manipulation of certain objects such as sharing via a link or cropping a video. Finally, the physical architecture of the solution is based on an x86 server and its scale-up or scale-out evolution is very simple by adding disks or servers."

"The ability for the solution to use any new hardware quickly and without administration is a great thing in the context of hosting."

"The solution is expensive."

"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."

"Its configuration should be easier."

"The documentational aspect of FlashBlade needs improvement."

"I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."

"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."

"Its configuration should be easier."

"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."

"Users must remember that running DataProtect and files on the same cluster could threaten access if there is a platform failure. It's not suitable for applications needing high I/O or low latency."

"The product currently requires a significant number of servers to start. There are also network prerequisites to be met in order to guarantee good security of the architecture, which means that the product is only available to large customers. Besides, the license starts at 100TB. An Appliance version is being developed with an architecture based on containers which will make it possible to offer DataCore SWARM to everyone. The product has been evolving since the acquisition by DataCore, but maintaining and updating the product is not always easy and needs to be improved. For now, we only use DataCore SWARM for a few use cases and therefore a small part of the existing functionalities. With use we will perhaps have more criticism of the product but not for the moment!"

"The main issue currently is the hard installation process."

"The solution needs simpler architecture."

"The pricing can definitely be better."

"The main issue currently is the hard installation process."

"It's a costly solution, but Pure Storage FlashBlade doesn't require additional licenses. All of the software is combined into one bundle."

"I have seen ROI. It has allowed me to increase the density of my VMs without having to purchase anything additional."

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

"The pricing is relatively expensive due to the FlashBlade technology. However, for companies needing quick and reliable data access, the cost is justified."

"The pricing for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate."

"The product is very expensive."

"Licensing fees are paid yearly."

"Our customers have seen a reduction in TCO."

"The first installation brick is expensive but the upgrades are extremely simple and granular by adding disks or nodes."

"You pay for what you use. For example, if you use one terabyte, you just pay for that one terabyte. But the pricing could always be better"