We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays 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.
"Having an intuitive user interface to get things running is great."
"The initial setup was really straight forward."
"We like the data reduction rates. That has been really helpful. You get 4U of Pure storage replacing something like two racks of spinning disks. One of the things that has contributed to that are the data reduction rates."
"The code upgrades are very smooth."
"It helps to simplify storage. For most of our customers, when they move to Pure Storage, storage becomes an afterthought."
"The performance of the storage is just unbelievable."
"Because we were able to afford to go all flash, we don't manage the tiers, we're not moving data up, and we're not waiting for overnight cycles."
"We also use VMware integrations developed by Pure, their plugins in our vCenter environment. They help by allowing our non-technical operations teams to deploy new data stores and resize data stores without me having to involve myself all the time to do those simple tasks."
"The performance is very good."
"This is one of the most stable, high-end solutions in this area."
"The high performance of flash storage is especially valuable to us."
"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 feature I like best is the stability of the hardware."
"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."
"Its scalability and performance are the most valuable. It is quite scalable and has a huge capacity."
"The product's reliability has been crucial for our company's operations."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to set a specific margin of performance to a specific workload."
"Compared to Dell Unity XT, what I see as an advantage in NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is the fact that it is more scalable...The performance of the product is good."
"Its performance is most valuable. This solution is much faster than other as well as older storage solutions. The performance of the system is very good. We are getting 50 times better experience than the older storages. We are using AFF 300. It also has native cloud integration and most of the features."
"The solution allows us to segregate one storage unit from another."
"Rapid deployment, easy integration management and cloning of areas."
"The replication and mirroring features are very good."
"The management software is very good."
"I like the performance aspect of EF Series. It basically provides everything that we are looking for as a solution, very low latency and very high performance."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve in the area of cryptographic information in the consoles. The user-friendliness could improve. The Pure Storage FlashArray team should come and log into the system with their maintenance credentials and then pull out the information as evidence of cryptography."
"Self-backup is the only feature lacking in this solution."
"I would like to see support for NVMe, end-to-end."
"In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption."
"I want to learn more about command line usage which I have not explored much yet. However, there are many automated solutions for repetitive tasks. I would like to see additional features like performance monitoring, configuring of alerts, and the customization of alert thresholds in the next release."
"In terms of the future, I have been excited by some of the copy data management stuff that they're talking about building into the environment. There are feature sets where I've done a lot of automation work. So, I am always looking forward to extensions of their API. They're also talking about a phone home centralized analytics database being used as a centralized management console with a list of new cloud features, but this doesn't seem finalized."
"Currently, the solution fails to support file screening."
"It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure."
"The solution is priced higher than its competitors."
"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."
"If they had a certain approach to layered storage, it would be better. For example, adaption to the browser, or having a centralized console."
"They should look at the cost because there are other vendors who offer the same cost with more features."
"The embedded management for installation feature has neither simplified nor complicated the management process, therefore, there is room for improvement."
"One problem is that there are too many management tools for the F Series and for all the other Hitachi storage systems. There are four or five such solutions. Maybe these could be combined in the future."
"In terms of ransomware, Pure Storage is probably a couple of steps ahead of Hitachi, but Hitachi does not rush in terms of features. They want to be really sure that the hardware works properly without any kind of problem in new environments, and the implementation or improvement does not affect the customer installation. They really want to make sure that customers are not affected in any way."
"The controllers in the product do not provide options for scalability."
"There could be better integration with some of our Cisco products."
"The dashboard could be simplified."
"The only major drawback is the replication between EF-Series units."
"I would like to have the ability to replicate data between All Flash and other NetApp storage systems."
"The price of the All Flash solution is very high."
"We have used IBM previously. We found that the storage from IBM was poor and we chose NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays because it can scale very easily."
"I've observed an issue when creating a new storage solution with NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays."
"The pricing could be cheaper and it should have documentation in more languages, specifically, Russian."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
More NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 10th in All-Flash Storage with 48 reviews while NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is ranked 23rd in All-Flash Storage with 38 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is rated 8.6. 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 EF-Series All Flash Arrays writes "A storage solution that offers great stability, resilience, and support". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and Huawei OceanStor Dorado, whereas NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and HPE Primera. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays 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.
