We performed a comparison between Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] and NetApp NVMe AFF A800 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Pure Storage and others in All-Flash Storage."The most valuable feature of this solution is the support."
"All our junior partners can administer the storage arrays. It is simple and easy to use. We don't have to dedicate a whole team of full time people to work on it."
"The most valuable features in Pure Storage FlashArray are deduplication and active cluster."
"We've had to use tech support on a number of occasions. They did everything remotely and talked us all the way through. They fixed the issue within 30 minutes. Every single time we contact them, they're perfect. I would give their technical support a ten out of ten."
"It is noticeably easier to manage than other appliances that we have."
"The support team is available all the time and they seem to know what they are doing."
"This is the best all-flash storage array on the market."
"I like the speed, and I like the API and how programmable it is."
"The most valuable features are simplified provisioning and management, de-duplication, and built-in encryption."
"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 most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a product that is fast and provides a fast I/O."
"We find the product to be very flexible."
"During the use cases of the solution, its reliability and suitability are the best."
"The product can be scaled vertically as well as horizontally."
"You can easily scale up, and scale-out."
"Low latency is the most valuable feature."
"The storage features are valuable."
"I like what they're doing, but some of my customers complain that they do not have all the bells and whistles and knobs to fine-tune workloads that some of the competitors have. In my opinion, that's good. All customers don't have dedicated storage gurus, and they can get themselves into trouble if they fine-tune too many of those high-performance knobs, but they do get knocked down. Pure Storage takes a hit in the minds and opinions of some of the customers because they cannot customize things as much as compared to a legacy storage provider's appliance such as NetApp, Dell EMC, or even HPE. I personally think 95% of my customers are better off letting the system fine-tune itself. That was something that you needed to do 12 or 15 years ago, but now with all-flash, the technology can handle what it needs to handle. Customers just end up shooting themselves in the foot if they are tweaking too many default settings."
"Its price could be cheaper. It is not the cheapest one out there, but I'm not directly involved in the figures and negotiations."
"Beyond a certain amount of petabytes, you have to have a separate system. Basically, it's not infinitely scalable."
"A three wave application or multi wave application synchronization would be an improvement."
"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."
"It would be nice to have a better view of the allocated capacity on their Platform as a Service solution because we have to do some manual calculations to understand how much we are going to pay every month to use the storage that is allocated."
"I would like to see active replication. I know that it's available now but I haven't tried it yet. I hope that it works."
"If they could make it cheaper, that would be something."
"The exterior display needs to be improved."
"The product’s UI could be better."
"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"
"The support can take a few days to have a response. However, the response that we do receive is very informative."
"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."
"The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better."
"The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach."
More Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in All-Flash Storage while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is ranked 17th in All-Flash Storage with 10 reviews. Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is rated 10.0, while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] writes "Good price-performance ratio, provides simplified provisioning and management". 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 ". Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] 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 list of best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage 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.
