We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and Pure Storage FlashBlade 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."The initial setup was straightforward in the way that it was a database vacuum storage."
"It has improved my organization because now have lower latency, we get fewer complaints from customers, and we see a constant response time."
"Data reduction and compression. Sub millisecond latency."
"The connections are a lot faster than what we had in the past. One InfiniBand does what we did on all of our Fibre Channels."
"It simplifies the overall management. We don't have to worry about storage anymore."
"The top-tier support and reliable storage are the most valuable features of this solution."
"The availability and ease of use are the big features."
"One of the features that my customers are really interested in is immutable snapshots. There are immutable snapshots to which your applications can be reverted back if you are hit by some kind of ransomware threat or malicious attack. That's kind of a key deal, and it is one of the selling points I use to point out to my customers the value and the features that Pure Storage brings to the table."
"The most valuable feature is that it has 'eight nines' availability, 99.999999 percent of the time. That is the main selling point."
"There are no significant challenges in terms of scalability, and it can accommodate larger storage capacities compared to other storage solutions."
"What I like best about Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is that it's a fast storage solution. It also has reliable models. The sales support is also good for this product. Even the pricing for it is good."
"The solution is very user-friendly in terms of maintenance and configuration. It's also possible to connect the solution to other storage management solutions."
"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."
"The setup is very easy to manage and configure. The initial setup and takes one hour more or less."
"Its scalability and performance are the most valuable. It is quite scalable and has a huge capacity."
"The performance is very good."
"What I like best about Pure Storage FlashBlade is its object storage functionality, plus it has fast underlying hardware. Pure Storage FlashBlade is also very stable. I find its stability one of its 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."
"The initial setup was straightforward. If you know how to plug in power and network you're pretty much qualified. They were on site to configure the network, the box to fit into our network architecture. Other than that, we self-managed from there."
"Speed and ease of use are the two most valuable features."
"It performs well and it is also very fast."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is performance."
"The most valuable features are the Metro clustering, and disaster recovery."
"It helps simplify our storage, because the user interface is very simple and the installation is easy."
"It goes at about 95 percent, so we have had some performance issues. It is hard to clear them."
"The integration capabilities could be improved."
"It's not so scalable. It's got moderate scaling capabilities right now. The clustering technology needs a bit of work, they need to improve that."
"As long as they always improve on IOPS speed, that's all we're really looking for. The faster the storage can be the more we can do speed of application and speed of use."
"I would like to see them develop the ability to integrate with more AWS services. There are increasingly more and more services coming out from AWS but there are also certain constraints where we can't move everything over to a cloud as well. We would like for things that are on-premise to be easily integrated with AWS."
"We've had it in place for about a year and a half and have had zero complaints, other than that box-to-box replication is not encrypted."
"Pure Storage support could be a little better."
"The price of this solution could be improved."
"The software has always been lagging a bit compared to the newer features. It usually takes a cycle for it to catch up."
"In terms of what could be improved, it could use a better, faster web console and other consoles. It is so boring waiting, waiting and waiting for it to refresh."
"If they had a certain approach to layered storage, it would be better. For example, adaption to the browser, or having a centralized console."
"Its usability can be improved. It can have more management features. Its management tools lack features."
"The deployment could be a bit easier, because it's a bit tricky"
"n future releases, I would like to see enhancements in the web GUI capabilities for direct management without additional PCM."
"The interface should be simplified and made easier to use."
"For the support windows to work, maybe they have to upgrade the firmware of the VSP. They changed the hardware or the disk. I don't know if it was the port blade they changed or a VM for a memory cache. Also, replacing the old target with the processor target would be fine. The old equipment is very easy to manage, and I don't have any bad commentary."
"It usually comes down to just what you hit and the value you're getting when you spend the money and license the products. I would always go, "If you want to make things better, lower your price and make your licensing simpler." There's always an opportunity around that."
"It's on the expensive side, as expected for a niche product."
"The Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us."
"The solution is expensive."
"Commvault has mainly driven the Analytics, providing data and reports. However, the product has room for improvement, especially regarding storage analytics. Upgrading firmware has caused issues, requiring feature disabling to revert to traditional backups. The firmware upgrades sometimes affect Commvault backups."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration."
"I would also like to see better support for CIFS workloads."
"It would be nice if you could store file-based in the same box with the same technology."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 10th in All-Flash Storage with 48 reviews while Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 16th in All-Flash Storage with 31 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8. 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 Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "A high-performing and scalable solution that improves data performance for S3 workloads". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and NetApp FAS Series, whereas Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO, Red Hat Ceph Storage and Dell ECS. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. Pure Storage FlashBlade report.
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.
