We performed a comparison between NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) and Pure Storage FlashBlade based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The cloning and snapshot features are the most valuable. With snapshot backup, we can clone a big database in minutes. We take a lot of snapshots for clients in different environments."
"NetApp AFF has helped to simplify our clients' infrastructure while still getting very high performance for their business-critical applications. One of our customers uses the vSAN environment in the release, then they use NFS for their VMware VCF environment and TKG environment. In this case, when they move to NetApp for the TKG and the VM infrastructures, they use AFF for block, CIFS, and NFS. It provides a single storage with NFS, block, and CIFS with deduplication, team provisioning, and compression. Everything is in there, which makes it very good to use."
"In terms of the footprint, it is far more efficient. It has smaller, higher-capacity drives than our older unit. In terms of space, power, and cooling, it has simplified things."
"It impacts customer retention because of its overall ease. When you are running a business, where time is a factor, that is the biggest selling point. Things happen really rapidly, when they happen, and being able to say, "Yeah, we can get this up and running in a day, if you want," or even less time in some cases. Sometimes, that can be what makes or breaks our case."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"Regarding features, SnapMirror is one we depend on right now. It helps us provide snapshots to the customers on request. There are many scenarios in which we might take snapshots in various daily use cases. We trigger the snapshots, which gives us a sense of security because we know we have this technology in place if something happens."
"I like some basic features like Snapshot, FlexClone, and advanced features such as SnapMirror, and SnapVault. They also recently enhanced the market with Cloud Volumes ONTAP. I think that NetApp is a very good product."
"Technical support has been okay."
"The product is scalable and easy to expand."
"It's very easy-to-use."
"The most valuable features are the Metro clustering, and disaster recovery."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."
"It performs well and it is also very fast."
"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 initial setup is pretty quick."
"It is very easy to use, and it is very fast."
"For ONTAP, in general, the deduplication ratio and Snapshot limitation are areas that need improvement. There is a global limitation on the number of Snapshots or clones that can be spun off of a particular Snapshot. If those limitations are increased, it might be helpful."
"Its integration could be improved."
"From my perspective, everything works well. They've already announced that they have some features in their next release that make the existing investment more usable, by adding software features to your existing legacy hardware investment."
"The admin tools and the integration with other products and clouds can be improved. It should also be easier to identify and troubleshoot problems in this solution. It takes a long time, and it should be improved."
"I don't like the newest GUI. It needs more options. Some features have been removed. Oversight is not as good in the new GUI compared to the previous version. Though, it might be something that we just need to get used to."
"We would like to have a feature that automatically moves volumes between aggregates, based on the performance. We normally need to do this manually."
"Their backup software could be improved."
"We have been seeing some challenges around the application layer implementation. We are having some teething problems now with the cooperation between the application layer and backups to things, like SnapCenter. This may be a question of product maturity."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."
"There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket."
"It usually comes down to just what you hit and the value you're getting when you spend the money and license the products. I would always go, "If you want to make things better, lower your price and make your licensing simpler." There's always an opportunity around that."
"I would like to see the licensing fees improved as well as the price per terabytes."
"It would be nice if you could store file-based in the same box with the same technology."
"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is ranked 4th in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 21 reviews while Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 10th in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 10 reviews. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is rated 9.0, while Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) writes "Provides us with quick options when restoring things for customers". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "Immutable snapshots, great performance, and simple and easy replication". NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is most compared with Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, Dell PowerStore and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series, whereas Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Pure Storage FlashArray, MinIO, Qumulo, Red Hat Ceph Storage and VAST Data. See our NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) vs. Pure Storage FlashBlade report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors.
We monitor all 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.
