We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and IBM FlashSystem based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the most comfortable pricing, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"The solution is very reliable."
"Performance, dedupe, and that it works well with database workloads are its most valuable features."
"It allows engineers to focus on other things rather than doing the more manual tasks. It automates tasks, so the ease of use is extreme. It simplifies the storage."
"At this point, I don't know anything that they could provide in a better way."
"They are quite responsive and our local team was pretty good."
"Pure gives us better compression, it's easier to manage, a lot less hands-on."
"The stability and performance are the best things about the solution."
"Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform 5000 Series exhibits good performance and has good IOPS: 300 IOPS. The technical support for this product is also good."
"One of the features, for us, that is important is the monitoring platform integrated into the solution. It has all the elements that we need to see, at all times, to be sure the platform is working right."
"This is a good product with high capabilities and high reliability."
"The product offers high stability."
"The most valuable feature of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is the platform and overall usage has been good. We have not had very many issues."
"The technical support is great."
"Data optimization, compression, and deduplication are the most important features for us."
"The hybrid array provides scaleable, predictable, high performance with no capacity constraints."
"Most of the features for the reduction in data compression are useful. It is also very easy to use and administer. Its performance is also good."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is compression."
"IBM FlashSystem has been stable in our operations."
"The performance of the All-Flash System is very good. There is more enhanced performance and data production in the solution, which I appreciate."
"The valuable features for us are the extra add-ons, such as the FIM provisioning, the compression, the disaster recovery capabilities, and the storage pooling functions."
"The feature I find most valuable, is the deduplication, because the nature of the data that we are using in our current environment, has a lot of replicated data."
"The power systems are very reliable if you are running 24/7 operations. For ongoing mission-critical applications, it's the best solution."
"One of the valuable features is the performance, it is one of the best in the market."
"The system has dual controllers but does not have a high level of resiliency built-in."
"The price should be lower."
"One thing I'd like to see in a future release is integration between their main storage array and what they call their FlashBlade product; to be able to snapshot directly from the primary array into multiple different backup copies on FlashBlade."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve some aspects. There are certain features that are good and there are some features that I see some issues with at the technical level. Those issues are related to replication. They need to resolve those issues, which I have already highlighted to the Pure team. Additionally, there are some issues in the active cluster that could improve."
"Just some nit picky stuff, like allowing servers and volumes to be grouped. Therefore, it would easier to work with them in the GUI."
"If we suddenly dump large amounts of data onto the storage system, it takes a while to process it."
"In some cases, we get into very in-depth conversations around movement of specific data and, what's more, chunk sizes. The documentation lacked any description or information on that."
"The one major gripe I have is that there is no snapshotting enabled by default on the SAN."
"The interface should be simplified and made easier to use."
"The initial setup was difficult, as we don't have access to assistance. We had some issues around configuration. We needed to know things like what kind of rate is the best, or what kind of replication is ideal. We had to seek out answers online to get the information we needed."
"The initial deployment was somewhat complex when it came to the installation because of the network connectivity. It was more difficult, in this specific case, than with other platforms."
"The installation procedure it a bit difficult, because it is a high-end solution. With this type of product, the original company is interested in doing the setup for customers in the area, but because of sanctions we were not able to get support in our area. We faced many issued trying to learn to run this product."
"The user experience is pretty bad in Hitachi. A lot of mandatory tasks take a long time to work through."
"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."
"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."
"We moved away from this product because we were looking for an all-flash solution, and with our G1500 at the time, perhaps two years ago, they were just proposing more of the same technology."
"The design is a little old-fashioned and could be updated. The rack is very primitive and designed in an older style."
"The security features can be improved such that the encryption does not affect performance in any way."
"The storage capacity of this solution could be improved."
"They don't offer subscription-based payments."
"The support could improve by allowing you to speak to someone when you call rather than them calling you back. However, once we do have contact with one of their technicians they are excellent."
"The solution is not able to replicate data in one-to-many scenario."
"This solution could be improved by offering greater amounts of storage."
"Our model does not support compression or deduplication."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 5th in NAS with 48 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. 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 IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and NetApp FAS Series, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF, HPE Nimble Storage and Dell PowerMax NVMe. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. IBM FlashSystem report.
See our list of best NAS vendors, best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors, and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all NAS 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.
