We performed a comparison between Fujitsu and NetApp NVMe AFF A800 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature is it never goes down. We can expand and create volumes."
"The speed is one of the most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray."
"The best feature is consistently lower latency, even when IOPS crank up to over 75K. The product maintains submillisecond response time, which is incredible."
"I never have to worry about its performance or if it is the root cause of an issue."
"We put a fair amount of stress on it because we run sequel workloads and we run web applications where the same web files are hit over and over. We have had almost zero stability issues with that SAN, that has been really great for us."
"The back-end data reporting for Pure Storage is phenomenal. The data that you can see on the performance of your customers' array, so you can be proactive about upgrades or enhancements, and is a phenomenal tool to have access to as a partner. I haven't seen this type of stuff out of anything of the other storage systems."
"The data reduction technology part of the scalability has been impressive, like its ability to host additional workloads, volumes of data, and databases."
"Our storage phones home. It is smart and intelligent in that aspect, which has been huge for us. We don't have to be storage administrators."
"It stands out for its affordability and the ability to provide unified storage."
"The product can be scaled vertically as well as horizontally."
"The most valuable features are stability and performance."
"Low latency is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"You can easily scale up, and scale-out."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a product that is fast and provides a fast I/O."
"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."
"The storage features are valuable."
"The backend of this solution utilizes an Active/Passive architecture, rather than an Active/Active architecture, which is a disadvantage, when compared to some of its competitors. Its storage capacity should be expanded in the next release."
"The support for NFS protocols right out-of-the-box need improvement. I'm used to other storage vendors who have NFS support right out-of-the-box, and Pure Storage doesn't seem to have anything."
"The number of Filesystems is limited, which it is not on the EMC VNX."
"The primary drawback is the cost, which can be prohibitive for small configurations."
"Going forward, don't complicate things for the customers."
"I recognize it's a difficult challenge, but I would like to see them make the pricing more reasonable."
"The product should improve its response time. I have also encountered issues with its configuration."
"In the next version of this program, I would like to see increased security, higher encryption, and faster throughput."
"The graphical interface is somewhat lacking, and it doesn't cover all the necessary tasks, often requiring users to resort to the command line for completion."
"The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better."
"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."
"Increasing the RAM, and including physical cords would be beneficial."
"The support can take a few days to have a response. However, the response that we do receive is very informative."
"The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach."
"The cost of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal if they could adjust it so that it's a but less."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Stability is an area with a certain shortcoming where the solution needs to improve"
Fujitsu is ranked 13th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 2 reviews while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is ranked 7th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 10 reviews. Fujitsu is rated 7.0, while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Fujitsu writes "Reliable storage solutions that offer an attractive balance of affordability and performance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp NVMe AFF A800 writes "Very easy to manage, highly stable and offers robustness of the CLI, API, and GUI ". Fujitsu is most compared with , whereas NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Huawei OceanStor Dorado, NetApp ASA and NetApp AFF. See our Fujitsu vs. NetApp NVMe AFF A800 report.
See our list of best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors.
We monitor all NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.