We performed a comparison between Azure Stack HCI and Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two HCI solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Before VSAN, hypervisor configuration changes and updates resulted in VM outages. Now, downtime is dramatically reduced."
"The backup is readily available for use, and the restoration process is easy."
"StarWind support has been great in helping resolve other issues not caused by their software."
"Recovery and maintenance are now less stressful and most importantly, it allows our users to keep working."
"The failover protection and the ability to expand storage and nodes with no downtime are by far the best physical features we have benefited from."
"The biggest benefit was that it allowed us to provide SAN services on a limited hardware budget."
"The vSAN provides full redundancy for storage while reclaiming some rack space."
"The installation of StarWind Virtual SAN was pretty easy, and the configuration was done in no time."
"In my hybrid cloud setup, there are three features I've found very efficient. The first is software-defined networking. Similar to Azure where you create virtual networks and software load balancing, Azure Stack HCI lets you configure them with a drag-and-drop experience on the on-premises cluster. That's one of the good feature."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is its ability to manage VMs."
"The solution has the latest processor."
"Very user-friendly and simple."
"Sangfor HCI has a really good GUI. It allows us to monitor the temperature of the server and many other things."
"I find the simplicity of Sangfor very valuable. It is easy to configure and user-friendly. The overall user experience as well as the usability of Sangfor is outstanding."
"It is flexible like a hyper-convergence system. You can add nodes, and you can scale to have better performance and stability. I also like the backup feature, the recovery system, and the web interface GUI to handle everything."
"It is a smart solution for virtualization"
"The initial setup isn't hard."
"The interface is very user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature is the three nodes and the free hypervisor."
"Ongoing improvements in read and write performance would help meet increasingly demanding workloads."
"The configuration can a bit cumbersome."
"Updating the software can be a bit tricky."
"We don't really have any issues with this product."
"I would definitely like to see quite a bit more on the monitoring side of things."
"The only point they should improve is the amount of documentation available for the user, especially in the first preliminary phase in which we were testing the product on our own."
"I would like to see different levels of support offered."
"Some configuration options still demand service restarting."
"We faced multiple problems with the product’s stability."
"There are a lot of areas for improvement. Since I've been working very closely with this product, there are many areas, especially in software-defined networking. We had to improve multiple areas because we depended on the service fabric cluster to manage the software-defined network. That means we're already running a hypervisor inside a VM, and we're managing the control plane of the software-defined network. That's another cluster. So, multiple layers make the complexity more. So, from an operational perspective, it's very difficult to manage."
"The product's initial setup phase can be a bit complex, making it an area where improvements are required."
"Its virtual machine tools can be improved. These tools should be enhanced for use in other applications and operating systems, such as Linux."
"The documentation and support from the community are not as good or as mature as VMware or Hyper-V."
"Currently, when we need to do capacity planning, we have to rely on Sangfor's support team for assistance. However, if there were dedicated tools available, we could handle it ourselves and increase efficiency."
"My company faced some issues with the product, as our virtual machines crashed, and we had to face some security issues."
"Sangfor’s hypervisor is not mature enough to handle all the flavors related to industrial needs."
"The solution could improve by including backup capabilities."
"Sangfor HCI has room for improvement in terms of integration. So, the integration with Sangfor HCI is not as extensive as in Nutanix."
"The initialization is not fully automated and has room for improvement."
More Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure Pricing and Cost Advice →
Azure Stack HCI is ranked 17th in HCI with 3 reviews while Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure is ranked 9th in HCI with 28 reviews. Azure Stack HCI is rated 8.4, while Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Azure Stack HCI writes "Performs well, provides good features, and has the latest processor". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure writes "The solution offers straightforward setup, scalability, and manageability". Azure Stack HCI is most compared with VMware vSAN and VxRail, whereas Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure is most compared with VMware vSAN, Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI), VxRail, HPE SimpliVity and OpenNebula. See our Azure Stack HCI vs. Sangfor HCI - Hyper Converged Infrastructure report.
See our list of best HCI vendors.
We monitor all HCI 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.