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."The scalability is good."
"The GUI is very easy to use and intuitive."
"The solution has probably reduced my power use substantially."
"FlashArray has many valuable features. It's very user-friendly and it has high availability, so there is comparatively less downtime. During maintenance, there is no shutdown procedure, so you can directly power off the Array and manage the shutdown process without any data loss, which is a unique feature. Managing replication and data migration is also very easy."
"The solution is easy to scale. I'm running two environments right now, so I need to scale. I'm running a part technology. I've got an A-side and a B-side."
"Pure gives us better compression, it's easier to manage, a lot less hands-on."
"The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is its high stability level."
"The speed is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The active-active option seemed to be working well and overall, it was a solid product."
"The most valuable feature is that you can use it with all deployment models."
"Its resilience is the most valuable."
"There are no significant challenges in terms of scalability, and it can accommodate larger storage capacities compared to other storage solutions."
"It is very flexible, and it is very useful when you want to virtualize different storage from different vendors."
"Storage is the most valuable feature."
"Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform 5000 Series exhibits good performance and has good IOPS: 300 IOPS. The technical support for this product is also good."
"The biggest benefit of the Hitachi platform is 100 percent storage uptime. It's also highly cost-effective."
"This solution is very stable."
"At the FlashSystem level, customers are especially fond of multi-tier and distributed rate systems, particularly the dynamic rate six arrays."
"User friendly management interface."
"The storage system is one of the best in the world."
"It is simple to make an update."
"I like most of the features. Its speed, performance, and availability are valuable. We are implementing the data reduction technology the most."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is compression."
"The most valuable feature is reliability."
"It's too early to tell if we've seen a reduction in total cost of ownership. The solution is expensive."
"The only time that we had problems with it was that there was a bug in the VVol implementation but, outside of that, it has been flawless."
"It would be nice if Pure had something in its portfolio that provided higher deduplication and compression for backups."
"The backend of this solution utilizes an Active/Passive architecture, rather than an Active/Active architecture, which is a disadvantage, when compared to some of its competitors. Its storage capacity should be expanded in the next release."
"The one major gripe I have is that there is no snapshotting enabled by default on the SAN."
"The problem is that we can only make a few groups, around five or six groups. I like groups and we need a lot of them. We had to put all the information in only a few groups and cannot make a more detailed separation of them."
"The support for NFS protocols right out-of-the-box need improvement. I'm used to other storage vendors who have NFS support right out-of-the-box, and Pure Storage doesn't seem to have anything."
"I would like to get a weekly report of how our storage has been used, and if there is any storage sitting there not being used."
"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."
"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 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."
"We have not been able to procure more discs for upcoming projects and this has been a problem for us. Not having additional storage is going to be an issue. The solution is at its end of life and will be replaced soon."
"The embedded management for installation feature has neither simplified nor complicated the management process, therefore, there is room for improvement."
"The software has always been lagging a bit compared to the newer features. It usually takes a cycle for it to catch up."
"Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform needs to improve its scalability options where there are a few shortcomings."
"The complex setup, ease of use, and snapshot operations of this product need to be improved."
"The deduplication and compression ratio is not very good. It's not reaching a very high ratio."
"The only issue my team faced was transferring the data from the old system to IBM FlashSystem, which is an area for improvement in the solution."
"The ease of installation should be improved. We had issues with the configuration model."
"IBM should improve its data reduction development."
"A big area for improvement is that the data reduction pool feature is not recommended for use in a production environment because it has stability and performance issues."
"In the next release having the next level of high-speed performance would be great."
"It is slightly more expensive, however, it all depends on your supplier."
"Cloud file sharing is an area that needs improvement."
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.
