We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays 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."It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"The latency is good."
"It's helped us because we've changed fundamentally what we talk about. We don't talk about storage and different tiers of storage anymore nor do we talk about servers. We talk now about applications and how applications impact the business and end users."
"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."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps to improve our processing speed. It is user-friendly and easy to use."
"What I like best about Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is that it's a fast storage solution. It also has reliable models. The sales support is also good for this product. Even the pricing for it is good."
"It's a state of the art solution in storage systems. High-availability and performance are the strongest aspects of these machines."
"We have many different types of replication, such as remote and drop local replication. All these features and licenses are already available. These are basic features available in the current model. Additionally, the performance has been good in our experience."
"This is a good product with high capabilities and high reliability."
"The feature I like best is the stability of the hardware."
"Storage is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features are external storage virtualization and the 100 percent data guaranteed availability."
"It is very flexible, and it is very useful when you want to virtualize different storage from different vendors."
"We do a lot of in-house, application-dependent type things, where we find the different niches to the different things. Certain things they do better. We've found that it actually does very well on some of our higher-end applications."
"The solution allows us to segregate one storage unit from another."
"Having the option of such high-speed storage in the data center is what makes it valuable."
"This storage solution is both stable and scalable, and it works for our needs."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the performance of the database access."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its speed."
"The stability, speed, and reliability are the solution's best features. The information is also very secure."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to set a specific margin of performance to a specific workload."
"We need better data deduplication."
"We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency."
"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."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"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."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"At the moment, I don't see any room for improvement in Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series because my experience with the product is very good. The software is okay and you can manage the storage well. What I'd like to see in the next release of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is for it to be a real NAS solution because right now, you need to use a Hitachi converter called HNAS which makes the process a little bit more expensive. In my opinion, Hitachi should look into the possibility of unifying the HNAS into full storage, meaning that the HNAS should be integrated into the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series."
"The snapshot and clone operation functions can be made easier."
"The life-cycle of the Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is too short. We only had approximately four or five years out of the solution before it was rendered its end of life."
"Its usability can be improved. It can have more management features. Its management tools lack features."
"It seemed like every time we turned around it was a statement of work and we'd have to pay for something that our previous vendors would not have billed us for."
"The controllers in the product do not provide options for scalability."
"If they had a certain approach to layered storage, it would be better. For example, adaption to the browser, or having a centralized console."
"For mission critical issues the performance is low."
"The price of the All Flash solution is very high."
"I would like to see higher-capacity drives, as they come out; I have heard that 15 TB are out on a different NetApp series. Getting those on the EFs would be nice."
"Better integration with other brands is important so we would like to see it easier to integrate."
"It was difficult to implement and lacks some additional features that would be useful, but as a solution fits a particular need for our organization."
"The pricing could be cheaper and it should have documentation in more languages, specifically, Russian."
"I would like to shrink it more, if we can. The smaller, the better."
"The management interface, while very reliable, it seems a little old now and could maybe use a little modernization."
"As far as the manageability, being able to port between the two and have to do less training in-house from a customer point of view, that would be the part to improve."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
More NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 10th in All-Flash Storage with 49 reviews while NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is ranked 23rd in All-Flash Storage with 38 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is rated 8.6. 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 EF-Series All Flash Arrays writes "A storage solution that offers great stability, resilience, and support". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and Huawei OceanStor Dorado, whereas NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and IBM FlashSystem. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays 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.
