We performed a comparison between IBM SAN Volume Control and NetApp OnCommand based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Storage Management solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is easy to use, easily configurable, and easy to upgrade, manipulate, and add new storage."
"The most valuable features of IBM SAN Volume Control are the copy services, performance metrics, and analysis. Additionally, they have upgraded and introduced visual volumes."
"The virtualization layer has been great."
"The product has an ultra-low latency."
"With SVC it is very easy to manage and to use for migration, meaning that when we want to move or to keep control of the volume or update a server database, it is very easy. That's why we use it."
"In OnCommand Unified Manager, we can monitor the entire cluster as well as configure data protection through Unified Manager."
"One of the main features is the ability to run the block and file storage from the same system."
"Snapshot is a valuable feature."
"I am impressed with the product's ability to warn us whenever something is wrong with the system. It is connected with Active Directory and Exchange. Whenever there is anything wrong with NetApp, the solution will alert you to an event error, post which you can start to troubleshoot."
"IBM SAN Volume Control could improve by better integrations with other vendor systems. IBM SAN Volume Control can store the environment and are able to integrate with Veeam, but I don't know if they can integrate as well with SVC or other vendors' systems."
"I would like to see the usage of virtualized storage boxes improved. I'd like to see this feature fixed, especially for SVC controller, and to be able to hold more storage."
"They just need to put in the snap volume because now they use what is called a flash copy. This means that you have to take all the volume instead of NetApp which uses their snapshot."
"Patch management and upgrades must be made easier."
"IBM support can be very slow."
"At present, OnCommand Unified Manager has just the monitoring and data protection features. It would be better to add some features for entire cluster management and storage management. Automation should also be included so that instead of separately accessing Unified Manager and OnCommand Workflow Automation, we can work in a single window. It is very much required."
"The solution lacks the ability to generate reports from Snapshot."
"There could be better performance in block storage and the GUI could be improved because not every operation is available. You need some operations in the CLI."
"The tool is not intuitive and the menus are confusing, especially the snapshot view."
IBM SAN Volume Control is ranked 4th in Storage Management with 5 reviews while NetApp OnCommand is ranked 3rd in Storage Management with 5 reviews. IBM SAN Volume Control is rated 9.2, while NetApp OnCommand is rated 7.2. The top reviewer of IBM SAN Volume Control writes "Easily configurable, and easy to upgrade, manipulate, and add new storage". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp OnCommand writes "Provides alerts on events and errors of NetApp". IBM SAN Volume Control is most compared with Dell VPLEX, Dell Storage Resource Manager and Huawei OceanStor DJ, whereas NetApp OnCommand is most compared with NetApp OnCommand Insight, NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP, Dell VPLEX, Dell Storage Resource Manager and NetApp BlueXP. See our IBM SAN Volume Control vs. NetApp OnCommand report.
See our list of best Storage Management vendors.
We monitor all Storage Management 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.
