We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and NetApp AFF 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."One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"The solution is scalable."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps to improve our processing speed. It is user-friendly and easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"This is one of the most stable, high-end solutions in this area."
"It is robust. It doesn't need too much troubleshooting. It is a good device."
"It's best features are its reliability and stability."
"The performance was decent."
"The biggest benefit of the Hitachi platform is 100 percent storage uptime. It's also highly cost-effective."
"The solution is very user-friendly in terms of maintenance and configuration. It's also possible to connect the solution to other storage management solutions."
"Data optimization, compression, and deduplication are the most important features for us."
"The product provides a good storage space."
"The most valuable feature of AFF is that it offers better visibility and control over performance, ensuring it meets customer needs effectively."
"The most valuable aspect of NetApp AFF is the money it saves our organization."
"The speed is great. That's probably number one in terms of features we appreciate."
"There are many reports accessing the applications. We receive them very quickly. We used to wait a long time for them. Now, you just need to wait a moment."
"Tech support has been absolutely amazing. I think on the technical aspects as well, my staff is able to get great support from the NetApp technical support resources that we have. What I love about NetApp is they have a health care division. At times, it's such an amazing thing because if we have a healthcare-related issue, there's no one better than having prior CIOs from health care organizations that NetApp has hired, and that are part of the health care team, to help out with any of those initiatives and support problems. Support has been absolutely phenomenal."
"I would say the consistency with the ONTAP versions and the speed and performance from the flash."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"We had some customers who were running virtualization workloads on classical spinning disks. We implemented an AFF system, and they got a huge performance boost out of it because the latency of the SSDs is simply much lower. Actually, most customers benefit from the improved latency and performance from the AFF systems."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"Right now, the box itself is just strictly working as a backend storage system. It would be fantastic if we could access it directly like a NAS device through network access or SIS drives. I think they have an interface, but I am not sure how good it is. If we could address a box directly on the network without having to go through a server, it would be great. The replication schemas could be improved. We are not using replication on the storage level right now. We use a different type of replication. If their replication would be as good as the one that we have, I would probably run the replication schema because it might be faster, but I don't know that for a fact. So, I cannot say that they have good replication. All I can say is that they need to inform us better."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"In terms of what could be improved, it could use a better, faster web console and other consoles. It is so boring waiting, waiting and waiting for it to refresh."
"Hitachi should offer a distinct overview of the various storage choices."
"The controllers in the product do not provide options for scalability."
"Hitachi should launch some small machines in Brazil. The smallest machine here in Brazil is VSP 350, which can be quite big for some of the customers. In China, Hitachi has small models of this equipment, but those models are not available in our region. Its pricing is a big issue for us. We are resellers, and we face some competition from other vendors. Hitachi doesn't always have a good position in terms of the price. Its user interface is also not as good as some of the other competitors, and it can be improved."
"Its usability can be improved. It can have more management features. Its management tools lack features."
"The interface should be simplified and made easier to use."
"The distributor needs more knowledgeable resources for technical support. It would be better to connect directly to the vendor in case of queries."
"If they had a certain approach to layered storage, it would be better. For example, adaption to the browser, or having a centralized console."
"The cost of this solution should be reduced."
"I would like it to be an IP as our network is mainly IP-based."
"Offering the ability to actively write data on a single volume spanning multiple clusters is significant."
"This solution should be made easier to deploy."
"I would like to see better tutorials available, beyond the basics, that cover subjects like MetroCluster and automation."
"During the initial setup, you need to know what you are doing."
"We only had a few upgrade issues."
"I would like to see aggregate level encryption in the next release. This is critical."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 10th in All-Flash Storage with 48 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 281 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "Leverages a 3DC architecture with VSP for disaster recovery, offering a 100% data availability guarantee". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and Pure Storage FlashArray, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Pure Storage FlashArray and Huawei OceanStor. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. NetApp AFF report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors and best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.