We performed a comparison between Hitachi VSP E Series and NetApp AFF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Their support system has insight into errors on our SAN fabric that we can't see. They've brought attention to and raised awareness for us about things that we couldn't see, when we were experiencing problems."
"The most valuable features in Pure Storage FlashArray are deduplication and active cluster."
"Access speed and power consumption are most valuable."
"Their REST API is wonderful, well-documented, and easy to use."
"The GUI is very easy to use and intuitive."
"The performance is very good."
"Provides fast access and is user-friendly."
"The deduplication and compression meet all of our system requirements."
"It offers good file sharing."
"We are using the Hitachi VSP E Series for high IOPS."
"Its user-friendly configuration and maintenance processes contribute to its reputation for being straightforward and easily manageable."
"The biggest benefit of NetApp AFF is the performance."
"Easier to manage with the clustered system and everything with the newest ONTAP 9."
"The most valuable features are the low latency and high-performance."
"Snapshots, snap clones, backups, flexibility, and agility are valuable features. I like that NetApp AFF is easy to use. We can automate everything for our backups and use cases. It's fast and simple, and provides storage to all of our VMware ESX hosts. It expands easily as well."
"The tool has lowered latency."
"Its consistent stability is one of the things that I like, and the performance is also very good."
"AFF has improved my organization because we now have better performance. We can scale up and we can create servers a lot faster now. With the storage that we had, it used to take a lot longer, but now we can provide the business what they need a lot faster."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is data protection and snapshot technology for backup."
"The higher education moves slowly. We are still looking forward to implementing the full list of existing features."
"The GUI is simplistic and basic. I feel like it's explanatory, but not enough, it needs a little more to it."
"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."
"We would like more extended historical data to help with some of the capacity planning. This is something that we are asking for all the time. E.g., what was the historical performance of this particular volume? So, we would like more historicals."
"The price could be better."
"We haven't seen ROI yet."
"There was some complexity in the initial setup."
"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."
"The solution's support duration or end-of-support life is very short."
"The graphical user interface is somewhat outdated, lacking some of the modern features found in other solutions."
"There is room for improvement in simplifying the overall complexity of the environment."
"The product should be more competitive and come up with additional features. They should keep the client always in mind and as the top priority. This would be the best way to compete with other solutions."
"NetApp could focus even more on the configuration."
"Going forward, I would like more performance analytics on it, on the area itself, instead of using some other tool."
"We currently use some thin provisioning for our planning system, but we will probably move away from thin provisioning because our Solaris planning system actually has some issues with the thin provisioning and way Solaris handles it, since Solaris uses a ZFS file system. The ZFS file system doesn't like the thin provisioning changing things and it brings systems down, which is bad."
"This solution should be made easier to deploy."
"After the three-year prepay, the extended warranty is a little expensive."
"The scaling needs improvement. NetApp is limited for scaling options."
"There are some bugs with the solution which need to be fixed."
Hitachi VSP E Series is ranked 14th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 3 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 280 reviews. Hitachi VSP E Series is rated 6.4, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Hitachi VSP E Series writes "A stable NVMe storage solution that can be used for high IOPS". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". Hitachi VSP E Series is most compared with Dell PowerStore and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and NetApp FAS Series. See our Hitachi VSP E Series vs. NetApp AFF report.
See our list of best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors.
We monitor all NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.