IBM Spectrum Virtualize vs Portworx Enterprise comparison

"The snapshots, replication, and the ability to have immutable blades are the most valuable features. You're putting data snapshots out in those blades, and they cannot be touched. Its performance is great."

"The solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is performance."

"FlashBlade offers low latency, high throughput, and seamless scalability."

"The performance of FlashBlade is excellent. It does not necessarily leverage the SOS API that some of the newer products leverage, but I found its speed pretty much on par and comparable. It is fast, and it does what it is supposed to do."

"We can capacity plan at a greater level than we used to."

"It's very easy-to-use."

"It is very easy to use, and it is very fast."

"It is a single pane of glass management interface, so once the storage is allocated to SVC, they only have one place to go to manage it for everything."

"One of the main features of Spectrum Virtualize is it virtualizes the servers from the storage. We have a very large infrastructure. A major advantage is when you get the aged storage arrays and you have to replace all of those."

"It has the ability to seamlessly move hardware in and out as we refresh technology."

"The scalability is very good. It can handle anywhere from very small to large enterprise class."

"IBM provides exceptional technical support, which I rate as the best along with Cisco."

"There are many benefits to this solution. Storage virtualization and the ability to migrate massive amounts of data to other systems without impacting your client are the most valuable. It is non-disruptive for my users. We migrated 350 terabytes of data in one night to a new machine without a small system going down and a single user complaining about the performance. You have to fine-tune a lot of storage machines constantly for performance and for making sure that they are optimal, but IBM Spectrum Virtualize does this by itself. It does the adjustment on its own, and it does it right. That's what makes it different. I had a huge VSP from Hitachi, which is also a type of virtualization-based engine but with a decent size. It was a continuous performance-tuning exercise. I never had that issue with IBM Spectrum Virtualize."

"Using SBC, a valuable feature is the mirroring, which is the virtualization of the disk between disparate places."

"I like that it can virtualize more than three hundred storage providers."

"The best thing about Portworx is the Stork, they have called the VPS (Volume Replacement Strategy) and they also have topology awareness, and these are the three features I like."

"A custom IBM script is designed to tackle the storage management challenges within containerized environments, providing crucial data services and features required for enterprise applications."

"The solution is user-friendly."

"Portworx virtualizes the aspects of the underlying block storage. That is good because they can also use block storage for their future deployment instead of just NFS."

"Portworx is a simple solution. It's similar to Pure Storage products. They're all easy to use and install. You need to have a little expertise with containers to use Portworx, but it will be no problem for you if you understand containers."

"I like that you have a small dedicated file system that is fast and resilient for containerized workloads."

"The Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us."

"I would like to see more deduplication."

"I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."

"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."

"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."

"I have not seen ROI."

"The feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services."

"To improve FlashBlade, some analysts suggest enhancing its handling of relational database management systems and SQL queries."

"The Storwize port is not so stable."

"Adding features for data deduplication is one area of improvement."

"For improvement considerations, I would probably say multiple sites."

"I would like to see more baseline replication and integration with the operating system between Vmware and IBMI."

"The case logging process is efficient, but resolving software problems takes too much time."

"The training program could be improved."

"GUI should be developed in HTML5 as opposed to Java."

"The integration would be an option that we would like, but I understand that's not how it's going to be implemented."

"It would be highly advantageous to include an integrated backup solution within the same license, rather than purchasing backup separately."

"I think the vendor could provide more training for new users who may not be familiar with containers."

"The documentation could be better."

"I would like to see a more native mapping to mainframe-type systems."

"The integration has room for improvement."

"They have not integrated Portworx with Ondat since they are too focused now on Pure Storage APIs and not on users like us."

"Our licensing is renewed annually."

"The price is a little high."

"Pure Storage FlashBlade is a hardware appliance, and it's very expensive if you compare its price with other solutions. You can get the same features and benefits from its competitor, VAST Data, but for half the price of Pure Storage FlashBlade."

"I understand that it is competitively priced compared to other brands."

"The pricing for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate."

"The product is very expensive."

"The price could be cheaper."

"I feel that the price could always be lowered."

"Do a proof of concept, if you are not comfortable jumping in, but do it."

"Generally the bundled licensing is more cost effective and gives flexibility to the solution. Linking into the Spectrum Suite can also be advantageous, but depends on the scale of the enterprise."

"We would like the CPU cycle to save more on the licensing costs for us."

"The entry point of pricing for this product is the most amazing price ever in the industry."

"I think it is a good value for the price."

"This solution came as an additional cost for the TSM package we chose."

"It has a lot of advanced functions for a reasonable price."

"I am very happy with the pricing. There is no comparison when it comes to pricing. I have looked at all solutions from EMC, Veritas, Hitachi, Dell, etc. None of them compares to IBM when it comes to pricing. I get great pricing from them."

"The price is competitive, but it is too expensive when paired with Red Hat IBM."

"The price of Portworx Enterprise is high."

"I'm not sure how the licensing was broken out, but I don't think our offering of the Portworx was more than USD $20,000."

"It has two offerings. One is free, which is limited to only five nodes. The other is enterprise, which is a bit pricier."