We performed a comparison between Pure Storage FlashArray and Tintri VMstore 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."The most valuable features of Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its superior performance compared to other flash tiers, as well as its ease of use, with an intuitive user interface that is simple to deploy and use."
"The Pure1 component is most valuable at this point in time when comparing it with EMC. Pure1 is where you can have your diagnostics in the cloud, so you can look at things from your mobile phone."
"FlashArray has some fresh efficiency features. I've never seen a storage solution with a compression rating this high before. It's at least 4-to-1 on Oracle databases. It's the best flash storage for Oracle."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"The solution is scalable."
"It has good, reliable, fast storage."
"We find the ease of usability and setup valuable."
"We're getting good performance, and the compression ratio is also very good in Pure Storage FlashArray."
"I use all the features of this solution and I find them to be easy to use and functional, such as the compression and capacity to expand."
"One of the features that my customers are really interested in is immutable snapshots. There are immutable snapshots to which your applications can be reverted back if you are hit by some kind of ransomware threat or malicious attack. That's kind of a key deal, and it is one of the selling points I use to point out to my customers the value and the features that Pure Storage brings to the table."
"It's just very easy for general block storage."
"I like the speed, and I like the API and how programmable it is."
"The management is simple in Pure Storage FlashArray."
"The availability and ease of use are the big features."
"Its performance is amazing. Since I have put Tintri in, I haven't had a complaint from anybody about slowness. On top of that, there is block-level cloning and the ability to spin up VMs."
"The data encryption feature adds a valuable security enhancement with no impact on performance."
"I like Tintri's Global Admin feature and the solution's performance. It's incredibly fast storage, which was a significant upgrade for us when we deployed it seven years ago. The Tintri snapshots are brilliant and incredibly reliable."
"We love the real-time replication, ease of use when connecting our servers to the storage, and the level of redundancy inside the box... It's also simple software and integrates well with VMware so we get a lot of information about all of the VMs, how they're performing individually, and about network latency. That's very helpful when you're troubleshooting a slowdown."
"The cloning is very fast... Another aspect I like is that it's very simple. It's an easy GUI to use."
"We have been able to scale up to ten VM storages and 500 VMs through a single pane of glass."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"We would like to see more visibility into garbage collection and CPU performance in the GUI."
"We have run into a couple of instances recently where we are running out of space. So we have had to buy some more packs for it and they have deployed fine and it has increased smoothly."
"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."
"Our use cases require more multi-tenant capabilities and additional VLAN interfaces for separating different customers. We currently use it to provide storage, sometimes shared storage, to different customers, but it is less flexible in comparison to a dedicated solution."
"Larger capacity and more storage ports would be the two things I'd like to see."
"The price should be lower."
"The price of the solution can improve."
"I like what they're doing, but some of my customers complain that they do not have all the bells and whistles and knobs to fine-tune workloads that some of the competitors have. In my opinion, that's good. All customers don't have dedicated storage gurus, and they can get themselves into trouble if they fine-tune too many of those high-performance knobs, but they do get knocked down. Pure Storage takes a hit in the minds and opinions of some of the customers because they cannot customize things as much as compared to a legacy storage provider's appliance such as NetApp, Dell EMC, or even HPE. I personally think 95% of my customers are better off letting the system fine-tune itself. That was something that you needed to do 12 or 15 years ago, but now with all-flash, the technology can handle what it needs to handle. Customers just end up shooting themselves in the foot if they are tweaking too many default settings."
"The system has dual controllers but does not have a high level of resiliency built-in."
"The price could be better."
"It was not proactive communication."
"Currently, the solution fails to support file screening."
"Their support staff just doesn't have the experience with all of the products that we're running. They don't know the 850 series like we do because it's five years old. There is a little bit of a gap, and that may just be because we're an old customer running on platforms that their staff hasn't seen. I would like to see an improvement in their in-depth knowledge of their older products."
"Detailed reporting is missing in the current version. We would like to see this feature added in a new release."
"I'm waiting to see the Kubernetes package. I know they're releasing one, but I haven't seen it yet."
"Tintri's Cloud Connector currently only goes to AWS and IBM Cloud, and we don't use either because we're Microsoft Silver Partners. It would be great to get the Cloud Connector feature with Azure. If it's not already on Tintri's roadmap, that's something I'd like to see."
"What I feel would be nice, in terms of a wishlist, is scalability. Rather than replacing the whole appliance, I would like to be able to just add another unit and scale it like that."
"We need more options to integrate with cloud storage options other than the current AWS and IBM that it currently supports."
Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 44 reviews while Tintri VMstore is ranked 12th in All-Flash Storage with 6 reviews. Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.0, while Tintri VMstore is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "Provides protection against ransomware threats with immutable snapshots, and it is well known for its scalability, ease of use, and non-disruptive upgrades". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tintri VMstore writes "We were able to push a button—it really is that simple—and flip primary and secondary storage locations". Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, VMware vSAN, HPE Nimble Storage and IBM FlashSystem, whereas Tintri VMstore is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, VMware vSAN, HPE Nimble Storage and DDN IntelliFlash. See our Pure Storage FlashArray vs. Tintri VMstore 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.
