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

Kaminario K2 [EOL] vs NetApp AFF comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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

Everpure FlashArray X NVMe
Sponsored
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.7
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (18th), NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays (6th)
Kaminario K2 [EOL]
Average Rating
8.8
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
NetApp AFF
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
314
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (3rd), NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays (2nd)
 

Featured Reviews

Jaehoon Oh - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Technology Officer at Lambda256
Supports efficient storage management through volume snapshots and offers reliable non-disruptive upgrades
I have no specific improvements to suggest for Pure FlashArray X NVMe at this time. The performance statistics could be enhanced. I can see the performance statistics in the Pure Storage console, but it does not show the performance by 4K byte unit. It displays IOPS and bandwidth, but IOPS is about real use, and I want to know how many IOPS are currently running in 4K byte units. I cannot see that IOPS because most storage systems report their performance by 4K byte unit. I want to see Pure Storage performance by 4K byte unit to compare with other storage or other internal NVMe SSD.
Engineerdb78 - PeerSpot reviewer
Network Engineer at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees
A solution with a simple configuration and good stability but it's quite expensive
Access to technical support should be improved for our region. Technical support is good, but they're very hard to access. When we have a problem with this storage, it's usually related to a very bad configuration. All-Flash Storage is very, very expensive. They are important solutions so I don't really have any ideas about how to rectify this. The device could use better monitoring tools.
KennethEtsula - PeerSpot reviewer
Presales Manager at Spartec
Offers seamless installation and efficient data handling with robust support
NetApp AFF provides an all-flash storage solution for unified SAN solutions, supporting both SAN and NAS functionalities. Data reduction capabilities such as deduplication, compression, and compaction are standard features included with the license in NetApp AFF. With the storage efficiency from a NetApp AFF installation, users can manage substantial data running on all-flash. The features such as compaction and compression provide storage efficiency guarantees in an all-flash environment.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Being able to have broken files on-site on the same appliance is quite useful."
"The cost for Pure may be high, but the reliability and scalability make it well worth the money."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"It has good, reliable, and fast storage."
"The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"What I really like about this program, is that it is easy to use and easy to configurate."
"Overall stability is very good."
"Implementation of the solution is very simple."
"The increased performance is many times above our previous array performance in all metrics. Integration with vSphere features is also a definite plus."
"Image backups of our production servers that used to take hours now take minutes."
"Logic/software management"
"Provisioning large numbers of virtual desktops has sped up considerably."
"Data reduction and snapshot abilities: Smaller footprint in the datacenter (lower cost for power, cooling, etc.)."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the always-on data deduplication."
"It provides a full feature set without separate licensing (deduplication, compression, snapshot, asynchronous replication, stable performance, etc.)."
"I think it is a very stable product."
"We went from a 59% uptime to a 99.9% uptime ratio, which is absolutely mind-blowing."
"Setup was simple and easy."
"We have frequently used tech support, and they are one of the best departments at NetApp; without them, we wouldn't be able to operate the way we do."
"From the automation point of view, we want zero down time for our clients with good scalability and good performance."
"All the features that we were sold and told about, they all work; it's been good."
"NetApp AFF is very good at cleaning up your storage."
"It's made a huge difference; we've cut hours off our job times simply by moving the storage and nothing else, so we can finally meet our production deadlines and shorten our work windows because we can complete the jobs faster."
 

Cons

"It feels more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses rather than enterprises."
"We need better data deduplication."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"Managing data isn't difficult for me. The performance is usually perfect, but we sometimes have capacity problems."
"I want to see Pure Storage not only be for fast storage, but I want to see it be for the entire data center."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"Every time I think of something that needs to improve, they're one step ahead, which I love. The only area I wish to see improve, I believe is coming, is in the FlashBlade product. Blade implementation fell short on a few of the services."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"A single pane of glass to monitor/manage multiple arrays would be helpful."
"Improved scale and budget planning with flexibility of the solution for budget needs and efficiency for growth with the great optimization ratio due to the nature of our use."
"A single pane of glass to monitor/manage multiple arrays would be helpful."
"There are a few areas where the system could be improved. Examples would be that the system currently has a 15TB LUN size limit and that snapshots need to be scheduled through script API instead of the GUI."
"I would like to see LDAP for the management panel; I've been notified they might be currently working on it."
"On the road map, I'm hoping to see Active Directory integration. Right now, you still have to use a local admin account to log in and manage everything."
"I would like to see them work with Cisco, so it comes off the FIs, instead of having to go through my 10-gig network."
"The interface look and feel could be improved."
"The web management interface has fewer options than the on-prem console."
"Inline deduplication would be great to have, but everything else is fantastic."
"ZAPI is kind of difficult to use. You know, it's SOAP-like, it's not really SOAP."
"We have run into some pain points. I don't know that it's necessarily NetApp's fault."
"In the past, NetApp designed it so that you have a 70% threshold. You would never fill up past 70% since you need to have that room available. Whereas with Pure, I can fill it up to 110% of what they listed and it's still going at full speed. NetApp can't do that."
"It has not reduced our data center costs. NetApp charges a pretty penny for their stuff."
"The stability is good but there is room for improvement with other options."
"NetApp is a little more on the expensive side, so it'd just have to fit whatever that they're trying to do, whatever their company is."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The tool is an investment that we've budgeted for. While the prices may be higher than those of other vendors, we see it as a market leader with benefits. We don't regret purchasing it."
"They can tout the functionality and cutting edge technology that they have, but that's where the price tag comes in. The cost is high, but I think as they grow their business and get more customers that it will probably go down a little bit."
"Pretty much everything that you need is licensed when you buy the product. Licensing to me is different than the maintenance cost, but they can bleed into one another. We buy the product, and we expect three years of support bundled into what we negotiate on our storage arrays. I would start to see maintenance costs going into the fourth year, but we're not there yet."
"With Pure Storage, we would like to continue seeing price reductions with flash storage. I don't think we're any different than anybody else when we continue to look to the industry for price reductions of both NVMe and traditional SSD storage. We would like to see these prices continue to decline and erode, even displacing large spinning disks."
"Our licensing fees are $500,000+ USD."
"The tool's pricing is cheap; I rate it a six to seven out of ten. Most of our sales are not subscription-based. We sell the hardware, and customers keep using it. They only renew the service part annually. The support can be a bit pricey, but the solution is more cost-effective than anything else out there."
"The support cost per array is about $20,000 a year for 24/7 support."
"Its price could be better. It is not too expensive, but it is the high-end cost. It is kind of a Rolls-Royce. You pay a lot, but you get a lot out of it. So, the price pressure on the way down would be great, but at the end of the day, if you need to do the work, you just pay for it."
"All features are provided in the licensing. The cost of Kaminario was less than the cost of a hybrid array."
"Licensing is very straightforward. The cost was considerably lower than other products we looked at."
"I would like them to come down in price. It is as expensive as EMC, Hitachi, and other major vendors."
"Kaminario is very competitive on price. They also have a pay per TB model."
"The "extra" costs associated with features and options that are available off the shelf with Kaminario, make their value proposition extremely competitive."
"The Kaminario setup is simple and there are no hidden licensing fees so this area is a relief."
"The licensing is all-inclusive."
"From an application standpoint, we have seen a lot of return investment on the speeds and responsiveness of the actual storage."
"We would like it to be free."
"It can get a little expensive if you need to add more disks. The cost is a pain point for us, especially in terms of expansion."
"The solution is moderately priced."
"Our space savings through dedupe and compression is over 50 percent, so we are saving. I think our 8080s has 20TBs. We are saving at least 10TBs and that's over 50 percent of the capacity that we're using."
"I would like it to be a lot less expensive, but it's been a very good solution for us."
"Our TCO decreased significantly because we were paying maintenance on nine different arrays throughout the country. We've condensed those down to three arrays, and our maintenance fees from the IBM product dropped by over a half million dollars a year, saving us $500,000 USD."
"All features are included in the license, whereas with an EMC solution, you have to pay separately for extra terabytes."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which All-Flash Storage solutions are best for your needs.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user186357 - PeerSpot reviewer
Solutions Architect with 51-200 employees
Jan 28, 2015
NetApp vs. XtremIO
Is there another storage platform as feature rich as NetApp FAS? I think it is fair to say that NetApp FAS running Clustered Data ONTAP is a very feature rich platform – the move to the clustered version of ONTAP has brought many next-generation features including Scale-out and Non-disruptive…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
10%
Government
6%
No data available
Manufacturing Company
13%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
7%
Marketing Services Firm
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business15
Midsize Enterprise11
Large Enterprise12
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise9
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business45
Midsize Enterprise47
Large Enterprise242
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Pure FlashArray X NVMe?
Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps to improve our processing speed. It is user-friendly and easy to use.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure FlashArray X NVMe?
The price of Pure FlashArray X NVMe is very expensive, though I do not know the actual price because I am using the E...
What needs improvement with Pure FlashArray X NVMe?
I have no specific improvements to suggest for Pure FlashArray X NVMe at this time. The performance statistics could ...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is the Biggest Difference Between Dell EMC Unity and NetApp AFF?
Well, Is one thing NetApp Storage has vs other brand is the mix of protocol CIFS with NFS booth working together in t...
What is the Biggest Difference Between Dell EMC Unity and NetApp AFF?
This question is very dependent on your requirements. Both are among the best in the field. Of course, the intended c...
What is the Biggest Difference Between Dell EMC Unity and NetApp AFF?
The answer depends on your needs and budget. If you want high performance (who doesn't) or let's say the latency matt...
 

Also Known As

Pure FlashArray//X NVMe, Pure FlashArray//X, FlashArray//X, Pure FlashArray X NVMe
No data available
NetApp All Flash FAS, NetApp AFF, NetApp Flash FAS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Fremont Bank, Judson ISD, The Nielsen Company
Wargaming.net, El Rio Community Health Center, ECN, SpotOption, Ashkelon College, Clearwater Analytics, Intigua, Cobb EMC Customer Case Study
DreamWorks Animation, FICO, Yahoo! Japan
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, NetApp and others in All-Flash Storage. Updated: March 2026.
885,264 professionals have used our research since 2012.