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

Hitachi Content Platform vs NetApp StorageGRID comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 4, 2024

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
7.4
Number of Reviews
211
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (4th)
Hitachi Content Platform
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
14
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (17th)
NetApp StorageGRID
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (9th)
 

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.
Mir Gulzar Ahmed - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at Synergy Computers
Integrates well with existing systems but technical support for the platform needs improvement
While deployment is simple, it's not as simple as StorageGRID. The architecture is entirely different, even though the end product uses the same protocols. The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. Deployment isn't as centralized either. Although I've deployed Hitachi Content myself in our production head office for the VM team, even though it's simple, it wasn't completely straightforward. They still required my help with the initial configuration environment setup. So, it's not just simple; there are some tricky aspects. The environment is tricky, but if you understand it, configuration can be done quickly.
Michael Lopez - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Systems Engineer at a outsourcing company with 10,001+ employees
Has reduced storage costs and improved snapshot management for large data workloads
The advanced features of NetApp StorageGRID which our upper management wouldn't agree to use, include the S3 feature. We are heavy into AWS, and my thoughts were to develop a small dev environment or even a POC environment on-prem. That's still up in the air as we continue on. Currently, AI has taken over everything with a focus on AI. The upgrades of NetApp StorageGRID present a challenge. It's a rolling upgrade, node by node. At one point, one node would not upgrade. The positive aspect is that it didn't take down the entire environment. The environment remained functional on two different versions. The scalability of NetApp StorageGRID has been proven as we've expanded twice. We started with six or seven nodes and have grown to 15 nodes. It does take time for synchronization to complete. From what I've seen, it took a couple of months for it all to sync up once adding nodes. However, it was transparent. It captured the addition and performed effectively, all happening in the background, steadily and surely.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"If I want a product which has reliability and high speed, and Pure Storage is the first name that comes out of my mouth."
"The speed is one of the most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray."
"Their support is top-notch, and their NPS scores reflect this."
"The management is simple in Pure Storage FlashArray."
"The support has been very good from Pure Storage FlashArray."
"It makes things ten times easier."
"One valuable feature of the Pure Storage FlashArray is its Flash-based architecture, which provides a significant advantage."
"Other than that, everything is perfect."
"This solution has a ton of valuable features, including a hidden capability that ensures you don't have bit rot by checking every single object stored on the system and repairing any problems from either a local copy or remote copy, depending upon your configuration."
"Integrating Hitachi Content Platform with existing systems is not challenging."
"The Hitachi Content Platform is a stable and reliable solution."
"The platform helps in efficient data management with the ease of server provisioning."
"In all my experience and feedback from customers, we are confident that this product is very good."
"As an architect, I like the management features that come with Hitachi Content Platform because it makes things easy."
"We are using Content Platform for data migration, and it integrates with our HNS platform. This is good because we can integrate it with our existing HNS and SAP solutions. The GUI is also user-friendly. It doesn't take much time to do anything. If we know the architecture and the steps, we can do what we need with a few clicks."
"It has awesome scalability. We consume it with storage appliance nodes, then we just plug and play as we need more."
"NetApp StorageGRID is a great alternative to AWS S3 buckets. Erasure coding is very valuable."
"The technical support team is reliable and responsive."
"The features or capabilities of NetApp StorageGRID that I have found the most valuable include scalability, interoperability, and integration options."
"The solution is very easy to deploy for any IT personnel, and it's also cost-effective, addressing all the challenges customers have with regard to object storage."
"Duplication, interface and the manageability is good and simple."
"StorageGRID is designed for cloud-based, highly scalable storage. Think big names like service providers like Google who need massive storage volumes with scalability. It also offers cloud-enabled storage capabilities with cloud management functionality. So, if you prioritize scalability and cloud integration, StorageGRID is the way to go. Its object-based storage is built specifically for that purpose."
"The implementation with NetApp went smoothly. It is a 'setup and forget' type of appliance."
 

Cons

"A minor issue that comes to mind is that, every once in a while, a hard drive will go bad."
"The best way to improve Pure Storage FlashArray is the active DR because that can get very confusing, especially when you're trying to test a failover and replicate back; better instructions on how to do that would help because we actually lost an entire volume when we were testing out some stuff as the fingerprint got reinitialized, and when you replicated back, it didn't know about that volume, causing a failure in that process."
"We have not seen a reduction in our TCO nor have we seen ROI."
"The connectivity needs improvement. You do not have the possibility to have a file and block connectivity at the same time on the same machine. It has limited ability to do so."
"The overall scalability for this product could be improved as well as having a single console to management multiple arrays."
"The data reduction that we had initially anticipated when we bought Pure and we moved over is way lower than the expected reduction."
"I would like to see more cloud integration."
"The credentials on the iSCSI interface are only available to type in with the Chrome browser, and not with the Firefox browser."
"When you want to replace a disk, we need to start the maintenance from the S nodes. We have to automate maintenance so any onsite engineer can replace it after that, but we don't need to do this on VSP platforms. An engineer can come in and replace that specific disk. If also we could do that on Hitachi Content Platform, it would be great for us."
"Two things that can be improved are pricing and configuration. Mostly the pricing is an issue."
"The pricing of the solution could be better."
"They should improve the user interface. It's a little bit complex. It does not have a self-learning method. You need to know how to use it before you touch the system. The user interface is not self-explanatory."
"The user interface isn't as user-friendly, and the management platform UI isn't as intuitive as others. So it can be more user-friendly."
"There is room for improvement in the capacity for integration with other platforms."
"The solution could use more integration with clouds."
"There is room for improvement in the capacity for integration with other platforms."
"There was a small amount of confusion when working with StorageGRID and Active Directory for access. We had to do things three to four times resulting in our engineer troubleshooting a couple of things."
"If I could change anything in NetApp StorageGRID, that would be pricing."
"The user interface of NetApp StorageGRID might need some tweaks, and configuration is maybe a little bit confusing for those who are not so experienced."
"It has its quirks here and there, but it is an older NetApp system."
"Improvements need to be made in the customer support area."
"Data retrieval speed could be better."
"The redundancy and reliability are great, but I also see room for improvement there. I would like to see more efficiency in the storage and dedupe/compression solutions."
"One key improvement I'd like to see in StorageGRID is enhanced visibility for management purposes."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The price of the solution is not expensive."
"Its price is almost double than any other flash storage solution."
"Pure Storage is all-flash, so this sometimes tends to make it a bit more expensive in the beginning."
"While it comes with a higher price tag, this investment often translates to significant improvements in performance."
"The price is reasonable."
"We do not incur additional costs beyond the licensing fee."
"Pure Storage has not helped us to reduce our licensing costs."
"We lost a lot of customers because we couldn't compete on price with other vendors."
"The price of the Hitachi Content Platform is very high."
"Overall, it's costly."
"Pricing is comparable to other solutions in the market."
"The product’s cost is average."
"Hitachi is more expensive than StorageGRID."
"I think the ROI for this solution is very good because the pricing for it is in between other solutions."
"The pricing could be better."
"I rate the product pricing around five out of ten—it's negotiable, depending on the circumstances."
"While we have been able to save money on storage costs, it could be better."
"It is very cost-effective."
"Buying the solution is expensive, but it saves you money down the line when you factor in the logistics of not having to buy tapes."
"NetApp is not known for being the cheapest storage option on the market. Almost all of the other storage options we looked at were less expensive than StorageGRID. The price is one thing to criticize, which is what we hear internally and from customers as well. They find the cost of the terabytes in this class of storage a little bit higher than expected."
"The pricing is quite flexible and depends on the specific customer requirements. The initial cost is primarily based on the desired capacity, so it's not a fixed price."
"The pricing of StorageGRID falls within the typical range for enterprise-grade solutions and is comparable to other vendors such as Dell, NetApp, and Pure Storage."
"With respect to pricing, it is okay. This product is mid-range."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
886,468 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
19%
Computer Software Company
19%
Government
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
Financial Services Firm
21%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business63
Midsize Enterprise36
Large Enterprise143
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise4
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise11
 

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 don't really know much about the pricing for Pure Storage FlashArray in terms of the absolute cost. Regarding Everg...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
Despite liking Pure Storage FlashArray, there is room for improvement in automation. Pure Storage FlashArray needs to...
What needs improvement with Hitachi Content Platform?
In comparison to competitors like Huawei, which can use all storage protocols in the same platform, Hitachi Content P...
What is your primary use case for Hitachi Content Platform?
Mainly, from my project, Hitachi Content Platform is used for archiving. The customer is in banking, so they need to ...
What do you like most about NetApp StorageGRID?
The management portals have most significantly improved our data retrieval times. They've made it much easier to rest...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NetApp StorageGRID?
As an administrator, I was not involved in the pricing of NetApp StorageGRID. From what I understood, it was cheaper ...
What needs improvement with NetApp StorageGRID?
The upgrades of NetApp StorageGRID present challenges. It's a rolling upgrade, node by node. At one point, one node w...
 

Also Known As

Pure Storage FlashArray
HCP, Hitachi Vantara Content Platform, Hitachi Vantara HCP
Storage GRID
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
Rabobank, Xinhua News Agency, Kremsm'ller Industrieanlagenbau KG, KSC Commercial Internet, AIS Group, Shanghai Interactive Television Co. Ltd (SiTV), China Telecom, Spin Master
ASE, DARZ GmbH
Find out what your peers are saying about Hitachi Content Platform vs. NetApp StorageGRID and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
886,468 professionals have used our research since 2012.