We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and NetApp AFF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two All-Flash Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."We find the ease of usability and setup valuable."
"The most valuable feature is it never goes down. We can expand and create volumes."
"The predictive performance analytics is a very good feature, as our system is performing better than before."
"It is noticeably easier to manage than other appliances that we have."
"It is always out of the box, and ready to use."
"The product cheaper compared to other solutions concerning the technology that they are using."
"The tool has reduced our power consumption."
"It's just very easy for general block storage."
"The deduplication is useful for us because we don't have that much money for our lab infrastructure. Deduplication means we have more storage available. And the IOPS are really fast."
"The product offers high stability."
"The Hitachi VSP has significantly improved data storage scalability by addressing various issues. Through their research and development efforts, they've incorporated customer feedback regarding deployment speed and performance requirements."
"Its resilience is the most valuable."
"This is one of the most reliable and dependable products on the market."
"The most valuable features in Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series are Shadowimage, easy to manage equipment, and upgrading the firewire is very simple."
"The most valuable feature is that you can use it with all deployment models."
"Overall, the solution is strong, easy and fast."
"It also helps to accelerate databases in our environment. First of all, there is the reliability of things staying online and the small response time as well, from the MetroCluster, for all of the data that we're serving; and the applications are talking to the MetroCluster. It provides a very fast response time."
"Data efficiency is the most valuable feature because of the dedupe and compression."
"We reduced our floor space by reducing 44 racks units to four rack units. It has helped us with our data center economies of scale. It reduces our support costs too, which is great."
"It should scale far beyond our needs. I don't think we will ever hit the edge of it."
"I would say the consistency with the ONTAP versions and the speed and performance from the flash."
"It has improved performance for our enterprise applications, data analytics, and VMs. These improvements are a result of all-flash, throughput, reliability, compression, etc."
"Using System Manager for green management or command line interface, we have a single point for managing the cluster. It is much easier to manage. It is very seamless. The product is robust and solid."
"I think it is a very stable product."
"I think replication is one area that still needs improvement. Earlier, Pure Storage FlashArray only had IP-based replication. There was no API-based replication, but they have enhanced the feature now. However, they need to work on API replication for C-type of arrays."
"Most of our upgrades have not been as smooth as they should have been."
"We would like to integrate it more with our backup solutions."
"The integration capabilities could be improved."
"Going forward, don't complicate things for the customers."
"From a scalability perspective, it is a very small storage solution, so it's not very expandable."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve by being more secure."
"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."
"The interface should be simplified and made easier to use."
"The complex setup, ease of use, and snapshot operations of this product need to be improved."
"Hitachi should offer a distinct overview of the various storage choices."
"In the next version I would like to see additional features like artificial intelligence and an increase in the amount of data it can store."
"I would like the fan noise to be automatically adjusted based on the drive's current workload."
"The Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform faces challenges when it comes to features like deduplication and compression. Enabling these features can lead to processor overload, resulting in performance degradation, especially under high loads."
"In the next version I would like to see more intelligence."
"The user interface should be made simpler because it is difficult to manage."
"A lot of the tools that are built into the stock, ONTAP operating system, instead of having to buy the add-ons and things."
"Tech support is a place where there is room to improve the product experience. The response time when they are busy is not very good."
"Technical support could use some improvement."
"The ONTAP S3 implementation is not feature-complete as compared to StorageGRID. We had to move our lakeFS instance from ONTAP S3 based on AFF to StorageGRID."
"Its technical support could be better."
"The certification classes are good, but they don't cover enough of the material, and the exams only test on what is covered in class."
"The initial setup was a little complex, because we weren't very knowledgeable in the NetApp at the time. We were using a third-party, and they didn't have a lot of technical individuals, so it took a while to get it out."
"The product has size limitations on fax volume. They have increased from 100 to 300, which is still less than other vendors. Or flex groups are not supported."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 8th in All-Flash Storage with 47 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "It's a high-performing solution with strong architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, HPE 3PAR StoreServ and NetApp FAS Series, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell Unity XT, Dell PowerStore, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and Huawei OceanStor Dorado. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. NetApp AFF report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors and best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.