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.
"Performance, dedupe, and that it works well with database workloads are its most valuable features."
"We consume less physical storage because of the solution’s deduplication and compression."
"It does efficient work of storing data while still delivering the performance that you would normally expect from a higher priced solution."
"The support team is available all the time and they seem to know what they are doing."
"Non-disruptive upgrades: You can upgrade at anytime without worry."
"I use all the features of this solution and I find them to be easy to use and functional, such as the compression and capacity to expand."
"This is the best all-flash storage array on the market."
"The deduplication in the array combined with its snap technologies allows the product to be remotely/manually controlled or scheduled."
"This is one of the most stable, high-end solutions in this area."
"The hybrid array provides scaleable, predictable, high performance with no capacity constraints."
"Data optimization, compression, and deduplication are the most important features for us."
"The product's reliability has been crucial for our company's operations."
"The most valuable features are external storage virtualization and the 100 percent data guaranteed availability."
"The most valuable feature is that you can use it with all deployment models."
"The first thing that attracted this model to us was the non-disruptive migration. We had a very large database application that was on older gear and needed to be migrated to these arrays. We had experience with virtualizing behind an array and moving applications and data but this made it even better."
"The biggest benefit of the Hitachi platform is 100 percent storage uptime. It's also highly cost-effective."
"The most valuable feature in demand is virtualization and its support storage of virtualization features."
"This solution is convenient, user-friendly, convenient and reliable."
"At the FlashSystem level, customers are especially fond of multi-tier and distributed rate systems, particularly the dynamic rate six arrays."
"The most valuable features were the performance of the array, i.e., very low latency and high IOPS. Plus, the management interface is very easy to use."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and performance."
"The installation is nice and easy."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"Flash disk with Easy Tier option"
"We would like to see more development on their Copy Automation Tool (CAT) for Oracle, as well as better integration for our customers running Oracle VM."
"I can't see where they can make anything better, unless, of course, they lower their prices even more."
"I had to contact customer support when a drive failed as I was doing a couple of OS upgrades."
"We did have one hiccup with the integration of vCenter. When we were installing Pure Storage, we were using vCenter 6.7, which defaults to the HTML5 Web Client. The current plugin for Pure Storage doesn't show up in that client at all. You have to go and use the legacy FlexFlash client to see the Pure Storage plugin in vCenter."
"The GUI is simplistic and basic. I feel like it's explanatory, but not enough, it needs a little more to it."
"We would like to see more cloud support, which we know is coming, although it's not out yet. It's going to be released in the next versions. That would be the biggest win, if additional cloud support is built into the array."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve the recent file storage capabilities because it is lacking a lot of features."
"Its price needs improvement. Its price is almost double than any other flash storage solution."
"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."
"The embedded management for installation feature has neither simplified nor complicated the management process, therefore, there is room for improvement."
"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 life-cycle of the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is too short. We only had approximately four or five years out of the solution before it was rendered its end of life."
"There is a drawback related to Hitachi's configuration flexibility. The Hitachi storage platform solution is not flexible. That means that both the Hitachi and the partner presale guys have to do a lot of work to design a solution."
"Hitachi should offer a distinct overview of the various storage choices."
"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."
"The security features can be improved such that the encryption does not affect performance in any way."
"The generic functionality of IBM FlashSystem, IBM always dismisses using file share or sharing protocols inside their storage hardware, and they only focus on the block-level storage."
"It could be easier to implement."
"The pricing could be improved, but I think it's getting better and better with each version. IBM needs to implement NAS storage again, as this is a big flaw. Dell EMC is very good at this and if you compared them based on NAS storage, Dell EMC would win right away. IBM's solution for NAS storage is very complicated. We don't have a storage box that provides file sharing from itself, we have to put software on it and go through a whole complicated process. It should be simplified."
"The Data Reduction Pools (DRP) support could be better."
"This solution needs a management console where we are alerted to issues and can report them, or escalate them through email or another method."
"The price is very costly."
"The design is a little old-fashioned and could be updated. The rack is very primitive and designed in an older style."
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 Dell PowerMax NVMe, 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.
