We performed a comparison between NetApp NVMe AFF A800 and Pure Storage FlashArray based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two All-Flash Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."What I really like about this program, is that it is easy to use and easy to configurate."
"One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"We're able to get higher-density workloads on the same infrastructure, and we have a smaller physical footprint. The performance is excellent – during our test the bottlenecks are never on the X array, it just keeps picking up the pace to match what you need. The real-time visibility is a differentiator in my opinion."
"It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"It is very easy to install and configure. It has got excellent diagnostics. If you really need to see how the box is performing, the console gives you a lot of information. You can set thresholds as well as alerts based on the thresholds, which is a very powerful functionality. They are very proactive. They know how to monitor and manage the systems. They see a problem, and they are all over it before us. They see the problem before we see it, which is very good."
"The duplication algorithm allows us to get a lot more use out of less storage. We're running a five terabyte array right now and we're running probably about 30 terabytes on it. So the duplication rate is pretty phenomenal, without a cost to performance. It still runs pretty smoothly."
"The storage features are valuable."
"During the use cases of the solution, its reliability and suitability are the best."
"Low latency is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features are stability and performance."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a product that is fast and provides a fast I/O."
"You can easily scale up, and scale-out."
"Over the eight years, we've been using NetApp with ONTAP, we've never lost a bit of data, and we've only experienced a few minutes of downtime in that entire time."
"We find the product to be very flexible."
"Running SAP on Pure Storage helps a lot without doing any further tuning to improve application performance. Our internal clients are happy."
"Redundancy and the fault tolerance of the platform are the most impressive."
"The most valuable feature of the Pure Storage Flash Array is the blazing fast monitoring."
"It has made working with storage as easy and simple as it should be."
"Technical support is good."
"The stability is perfect. The reliability is 100% and the latency is always lower than 1 millisecond."
"The most valuable feature is it never goes down. We can expand and create volumes."
"Cost, racial per terabyte, and speed is why we chose PureStorage. It was no brainer."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"The UI for this solution needs to be improved."
"You cannot tag a LUN with a description, and that should be improved. What I like on the Unity side is that when I expand LUNs or do things, there is an information field on the LUN. This is the Information field that you can tag on your LUNs to let yourself know, "Hey, I've added this much space on this date". Pure lacks that ability. So, you don't have a mechanism that's friendly for tracking your data expansions on the LUN and for adding any additional information. That's a downside for me."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"The software layer has to improve."
"The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"Sometimes, it takes a while to get somebody competent on the other end of the line. They do have engineers in multiple time zones around the world. However, their level-one support is not always the best."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Stability is an area with a certain shortcoming where the solution needs to improve"
"The cost of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal if they could adjust it so that it's a but less."
"Increasing the RAM, and including physical cords would be beneficial."
"The support can take a few days to have a response. However, the response that we do receive is very informative."
"I would like to see support for NVMe, end-to-end."
"It goes at about 95 percent, so we have had some performance issues. It is hard to clear them."
"If we suddenly dump large amounts of data onto the storage system, it takes a while to process it."
"A year ago they promised that they would be able to read through the database encryption with more metric and they have not delivered on that patch, which is significant because it gives us back so much more storage room. We want to be able to read through the encryption."
"I would like to see them develop the ability to integrate with more AWS services. There are increasingly more and more services coming out from AWS but there are also certain constraints where we can't move everything over to a cloud as well. We would like for things that are on-premise to be easily integrated with AWS."
"It's too early to tell if we've seen a reduction in total cost of ownership. The solution is expensive."
"A three wave application or multi wave application synchronization would be an improvement."
"It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure."
NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is ranked 17th in All-Flash Storage with 10 reviews while Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 3rd in All-Flash Storage with 174 reviews. NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is rated 8.8, while Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of NetApp NVMe AFF A800 writes "Very easy to manage, highly stable and offers robustness of the CLI, API, and GUI ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "Effective provisioning, helpful support, and reliable". NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Dell PowerMax NVMe, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and IBM FlashSystem, whereas Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, HPE Nimble Storage, IBM FlashSystem and VMware vSAN. See our NetApp NVMe AFF A800 vs. Pure Storage FlashArray report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage 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.