We performed a comparison between NetApp StorageGRID and Pure Storage FlashBlade based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two File and Object Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The speed of the disks removed the bottleneck from our storage."
"The implementation with NetApp went smoothly. It is a 'setup and forget' type of appliance."
"It has awesome scalability. We consume it with storage appliance nodes, then we just plug and play as we need more."
"Cost-effective and easy to deploy."
"The technical support is good."
"Right now, we have an older StorageGRID. I like that we can grow it."
"The most valuable feature is tiering."
"It helps automate our storage infrastructure."
"The ease of deployment and management has helped us simplify our storage. We also do not have to worry about capacity management as much. A lot of these things are native to Pure Storage."
"I would rate this solution an eight plus. It has has good flexibility and stability, it's easy to manage and the response time is good."
"The most valuable features are the Metro clustering, and disaster recovery."
"The product is scalable and easy to expand."
"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."
"Using this solution has made our backups more reliable."
"The onboarding and integrated monitoring tools are pretty good."
"It performs well and it is also very fast."
"One key improvement I'd like to see in StorageGRID is enhanced visibility for management purposes."
"The integration with more apps has room for improvement."
"I just recommend improving the marketing campaigns in Pakistan."
"I would like to see them integrate more with the monitoring platforms. It is a bit difficult to get automated monitoring of the system."
"The only real issue that we have run into is, when we are cloning, we cannot do a thin provision clone, it has to be a full clone."
"There was a small amount of confusion when working with StorageGRID and Active Directory for access. We had to do things three to four times resulting in our engineer troubleshooting a couple of things. The location of the menu, along with what is inside the menu: configurations, settings, etc., is not straightforward to users. Most users are Windows-based. So, when make logical changes to the menu which are not similar to Windows, users and administrators get confused."
"Improvements need to be made in the support area."
"The redundancy and reliability are great, but I also see room for improvement there. I would like to see more efficiency in the storage and dedupe/compression solutions."
"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."
"An area for improvement in Pure Storage FlashBlade is its price. It could be reduced. The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade also needs improvement. It used to be good, with more experienced engineers. Nowadays, it isn't, and it takes longer for support to solve problems."
"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."
"Compared to, for example, Hitachi NAS, the solution is not mature at all. It's just in its infancy as far as technology goes."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
"We haven't been able to use much of the cloud area of Pure Storage. We have a storage server and it would be better if it could integrate with other cloud features of this solution."
"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."
"In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready."
NetApp StorageGRID is ranked 8th in File and Object Storage with 11 reviews while Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 6th in File and Object Storage with 31 reviews. NetApp StorageGRID is rated 8.6, while Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of NetApp StorageGRID writes "Scalable object storage with robust data durability with efficient geo-distribution and comprehensive lifecycle management ensuring managing of large volumes of unstructured data". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "A high-performing and scalable solution that improves data performance for S3 workloads". NetApp StorageGRID is most compared with Dell ECS, MinIO, Red Hat Ceph Storage, Scality RING and Hitachi Content Platform, whereas Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO, Pure Storage FlashArray and Dell PowerStore. See our NetApp StorageGRID vs. Pure Storage FlashBlade report.
See our list of best File and Object Storage vendors.
We monitor all File and Object 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.
