We performed a comparison between HPE StoreOnce and HPE 3PAR StoreServ based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, HPE 3PAR StoreServ came out ahead of HPE StoreOnce. Even though both products have similar deployment difficulties, price range, and support quality, HPE StoreOnce has fewer valuable features than HPE 3PAR StoreServ.
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"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."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"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."
"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."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"It works well and we don't have any issues with this solution."
"The solution has increased our performance by about 40 percent."
"We have much better performance than we managed earlier and are now saving lots of space."
"We also use dynamic optimization to go between tiers."
"Scalability, because our customer is fast growing and our solution should be able to start very small and grow very quickly."
"When we started using 3PAR what we liked was the simplicity of the product. We needed a higher performance storage and, in our support model, we needed to keep the simplicity of the storage architecture, keep it as clean and as manageable as we could."
"I think the storage is very good, the way it stores, the thin provisioning it provides, and the data protection. And it's easy to deploy in any environment. We are using VMware. So for me, it's a right click and it's deployed. We can configure and create LUNS very easily with 3PAR management, and the interface is very user-friendly. Easily understandable."
"This system has been (by far) the easiest to use, manage, and expand."
"Technical support is quite good."
"The important feature is compression and duplication. It has a good compression ratio and is very stable."
"I think StoreOnce's deduplication technology is crucial for cost efficiency and faster recovery, especially for backup and data protection purposes."
"The initial setup process is simple."
"We also really benefit from the GUI capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of HPE StoreOnce is the virtual drive."
"HPE StoreOnce works well, it is stable."
"The most valuable features for us are the ease of use, the reliability, and the exceptional deduplication that we get across that data that we store on those devices."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"I want to see Pure Storage not only be for fast storage, but I want to see it be for the entire data center."
"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."
"It is on the expensive side."
"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."
"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."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"I would like to see a little better integration with OneView and provisioning ESX Hosts."
"I would like to see more flexibility with the cloud. I've actually just been in a presentation about it, here at HPE Discover 2018, so those features are coming."
"I would like to have more details on alerting. It is not real granular right now. What It gives you is sort of basic, and we can't do a lot of tweaking on our own. We would like to be able to tweak some of the alerts for our team."
"During the initial setup, it was a bit complex in the wiring of the cages."
"The solution could improve by being more secure."
"Generally, the management of the multiple systems that we have is really the only problem, always having to go to all these separate tools to manage everything."
"We would like to see deduplication and hybrid in the next release of the solution."
"The GUI was a little hard to figure out how to use."
"Cloud integration needs to be simplified."
"It is difficult to solve issues with this solution remotely. I prefer to use the knowledge base platforms. The response time could improve."
"HPE StoreOnce needs to be made cheaper than products from Dell and Veeam."
"The solution would be improved if it could also be used as a data store for VMware."
"HPE StoreOnce should come with a detailed installation guide."
"The web interface, ease of use, and GUI all need to be improved."
"HPE StoreOnce Backup to Disk (BTD) is not a good backup solution for NAS devices. It does not have a dual controller, so if one controller fails, the entire system will go down."
"Agnostic backups."
HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 9th in All-Flash Storage with 299 reviews while HPE StoreOnce is ranked 2nd in Deduplication Software with 103 reviews. HPE 3PAR StoreServ is rated 8.6, while HPE StoreOnce is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of HPE 3PAR StoreServ writes "The product's technical support is outstanding as I can reach someone right away". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE StoreOnce writes "Helps to consolidate D2D backups and has a good deduplication ratio". HPE 3PAR StoreServ is most compared with HPE Primera, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, NetApp AFF and Pure Storage FlashArray, whereas HPE StoreOnce is most compared with Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), Dell PowerVault, ExaGrid EX Series, DD Boost and Veritas NetBackup. See our HPE 3PAR StoreServ vs. HPE StoreOnce 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.
