We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and NetApp NVMe AFF A800 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 speed of the Pure FlashArray is very, very fast and nothing in the market can compare to it."
"At this point, I don't know anything that they could provide in a better way."
"The reliability is very good."
"Performance, deduplication, compression, and fast response time for requests from servers and applications."
"The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are simplicity, ease of use, and dashboard management."
"We're getting good performance, and the compression ratio is also very good in Pure Storage FlashArray."
"Because of the encryption, we have different storage and the encryption can go over both."
"With Pure Storage, we don't see any latency or IOPS. It has been a very seamless integration."
"The active-active option seemed to be working well and overall, it was a solid product."
"Its scalability and performance are the most valuable. It is quite scalable and has a huge capacity."
"Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform 5000 Series exhibits good performance and has good IOPS: 300 IOPS. The technical support for this product is also good."
"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."
"This is one of the most reliable and dependable products on the market."
"Overall, the solution is strong, easy and fast."
"I am happy about the storage system and availability."
"The storage features are valuable."
"NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is easier to use than some other solutions and the UI is very good to use for day-to-day activities. Overall, the solution has good technology."
"We find the product to be very flexible."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a product that is fast and provides a fast I/O."
"You can easily scale up, and scale-out."
"The most valuable features are stability and performance."
"The product can be scaled vertically as well as horizontally."
"During the use cases of the solution, its reliability and suitability are the best."
"It would be nice if Pure had something in its portfolio that provided higher deduplication and compression for backups."
"It was not proactive communication."
"It would be nice to have a better view of the allocated capacity on their Platform as a Service solution because we have to do some manual calculations to understand how much we are going to pay every month to use the storage that is allocated."
"I would like a feature to integrate with external or cloud solutions. For example, if I want to use this storage for a backup from the cloud, I want to have integration with the cloud vendors, such as Microsoft, Oracles, or Amazon. It could be available as an API to allow seamless integration. Additionally, the solution could improve by having native integration with a cloud provider, such as VMware or Microsoft, this would reduce the need to use third-party solutions to complete the task."
"The integration capabilities could be improved."
"The price of the solution can improve."
"As partners, we should have the option to download the software, rather than have to go back through Pure to obtain it."
"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 pricing is high, but the product is good. Additional features like data duplication might make it even better."
"n future releases, I would like to see enhancements in the web GUI capabilities for direct management without additional PCM."
"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."
"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."
"This product should be easier to install and set up."
"Hitachi Vantara has invested heavily in improving their management interface, however, they still have a way to go to catch up with many of their 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."
"The software has always been lagging a bit compared to the newer features. It usually takes a cycle for it to catch up."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach."
"Sometimes, it takes a while to get somebody competent on the other end of the line. They do have engineers in multiple time zones around the world. However, their level-one support is not always the best."
"Increasing the RAM, and including physical cords would be beneficial."
"The support can take a few days to have a response. However, the response that we do receive is very informative."
"The product’s UI could be better."
"Stability is an area with a certain shortcoming where the solution needs to improve"
"The technical support has room for improvement."
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 NVMe AFF A800 is ranked 17th in All-Flash Storage with 10 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 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 NetApp NVMe AFF A800 writes "Very easy to manage, highly stable and offers robustness of the CLI, API, and GUI ". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and NetApp FAS Series, whereas NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Dell PowerMax NVMe, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and NetApp AFF. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. NetApp NVMe AFF A800 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.