Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

InfoScale vs Portworx Enterprise comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jan 21, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

InfoScale
Ranking in Data Storage for Kubernetes
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.7
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
High Availability Clustering (1st), Disaster Recovery (DR) Software (53rd)
Portworx Enterprise
Ranking in Data Storage for Kubernetes
1st
Average Rating
9.2
Number of Reviews
6
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Software Defined Storage (3rd)
 

Featured Reviews

TJ
Site Reliability Engineer (Certified) at Kyndryl India
Automated recovery has minimized downtime and supports seamless multi‑datacenter failover
Beyond pricing, there are areas where I would like to see InfoScale improved or enhanced. Veritas offers three management approaches. The first, which Veritas currently recommends, is Veritas Operation Manager. The second is the Cluster Manager Java Console graphical interface. The Cluster Manager Java Console has not been revised since version 6.1 or 6.2. This tool was critical for me, particularly valuable when managing small cluster footprints of 20 to 30 server nodes. I relied heavily on this tool, but Veritas has moved away from it in favor of Operation Manager. I recommend Veritas continue evolving this tool rather than discarding it. The third approach is the command line, suitable for individuals with extensive Veritas expertise and experience, but command line use in live environments consumed excessive time, leading me to prefer the graphical interface. Apart from pricing, I have not discovered disadvantages. The product is excellent. My concern is Veritas discarding the Cluster Manager Java Console in favor of Veritas Operation Manager. Setting up Operation Manager requires time and a dedicated server that runs continuously. I had to create a single server just for Veritas Operation Manager. While this works well for larger environments with hundreds of clusters, it is less useful for smaller deployments. I still recommend Veritas reconsider this application and evolve it by incorporating new features from Veritas Operation Manager. Adding these new features to the Java console would be beneficial because that tool runs on my laptop without consuming environment resources, and I can connect directly to clusters from my laptop. I am not opposing Veritas Operation Manager, which is excellent and resembles hardware management consoles for power machines, but smaller tools that previously performed these tasks should remain as options to provide clients with greater ease. From a features and functionality perspective, I do not find missing features in InfoScale at this moment. However, I am not actively using Veritas, managing only legacy machines on older hardware. I am upgrading operating systems but not Veritas due to contract expiration and end-of-life status. The contract is not being renewed because the customer wants to move away. Since I have not logged into VCS since 2021 and transferred responsibilities to another team, I am unaware of features arriving in version 8 or beyond and cannot comment specifically on recent Veritas introductions.
Paulo Jose  Bosco Otto - PeerSpot reviewer
Consultant at PBOservicos-Informatica
A solution backed by strong customer support, that is stable and scalable
As a company managed in a Kubernetes environment, being trusted by a Kubernetes vendor, Red Hat creates barriers against using other certified solutions that work. Because IBM is a competitor of Pure Storage, things seem to be getting worse. I don't have plans to use Portworx Enterprise in the future because, at the moment, I am working with Ondat, and I have to follow NetApp's direction on that. When evaluating Portworx, one should make sure their company has already chosen Pure Storage. Still, if they are evaluating the solution on Ondat or Dell or other platforms, they should get a roadmap statement from Pure Storage, that they will continue to develop storage hardware diagnostics. I rate Portworx a nine out of ten.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"It integrates well with other solutions."
"It offers High Availability for many applications, including Oracle and SAP environment."
"From a recovery standpoint, InfoScale is excellent and easy to manage."
"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 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."
"The solution is user-friendly."
"I like that you have a small dedicated file system that is fast and resilient for containerized workloads."
"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."
 

Cons

"The primary concern is licensing cost, as the customer is unwilling to invest further and has begun cost-cutting measures."
"It's very difficult to implement."
"It could be more stable and more secure."
"The integration has room for improvement."
"I would like to see a more native mapping to mainframe-type systems."
"They have not integrated Portworx with Ondat since they are too focused now on Pure Storage APIs and not on users like us."
"I think the vendor could provide more training for new users who may not be familiar with containers."
"It would be highly advantageous to include an integrated backup solution within the same license, rather than purchasing backup separately."
"The documentation could be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"Our clients pay for licensing on a yearly basis."
"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."
"The price is competitive, but it is too expensive when paired with Red Hat IBM."
"It has two offerings. One is free, which is limited to only five nodes. The other is enterprise, which is a bit pricier."
"The price of Portworx Enterprise is high."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Storage for Kubernetes solutions are best for your needs.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
21%
Insurance Company
9%
University
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
21%
Financial Services Firm
14%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

Veritas InfoScale Availability, Arctera InfoScale for Kubernetes
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Wayne State University, Zenith Mart
NIO, GE Digital, DreamWorks Animation, Lufthansa, beco, NEW CONTEXT
Find out what your peers are saying about InfoScale vs. Portworx Enterprise and other solutions. Updated: March 2026.
884,933 professionals have used our research since 2012.