We performed a comparison between Huawei OceanStor and IBM FlashSystem 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, IBM FlashSystem came out ahead of Huawei OceanStor. Although both products have valuable features, our reviewers found that Huawei OceanStor has complex licensing that can make the solution too expensive and needs to improve their tech support’s communication.
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"Overall stability is very good. It is a very stable solution."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps to improve our processing speed. It is user-friendly and easy to use."
"One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"It has benefited my organization because it has reduced time to insights."
"The latency is good."
"The most valuable feature is the flexibility in the rail, as it is hybrid storage."
"Its technical support team is helpful."
"Huawei OceanStor has the capability of SSDs, high-performance disks, and higher disk support."
"It is a highly available product."
"We get a quick response in case any component defaults. We have seen the benefits mostly."
"It is easy to use, deploy, communicate and manage this solution."
"Stability: The product is designed to have always HA (High Availability) with redundant network and processors."
"OceanStor is cheaper than Dell EMC, and its management interface is quite simple."
"The most crucial feature of IBM FlashSystem is compression."
"IBM FlashSystem is a powerful effective storage solution. Additionally, it is user-friendly, anyone can use it."
"IBM FlashSystem has been stable in our operations."
"The most valuable features of IBM FlashSystem are performance and security."
"The most valuable feature in demand is virtualization and its support storage of virtualization features."
"Over the years, it has become increasingly user-friendly."
"The pricing is reasonable."
"This solution is convenient, user-friendly, convenient and reliable."
"It is on the expensive side."
"If the customer only needs 500 terabytes and doesn't care how much data they'll put in the server, IBM is cheaper than Pure."
"We would like to see VNC integration or be able to use Pure Storage with VNC."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"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."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"The user interface is not so user friendly."
"Technical support could be more helpful."
"The solution could improve by having better integration."
"The tool's performance is slow for DBs. We plan to move from Huawei OceanStor to Pure Storage. Its customer service is not good."
"Its data replication features work slowly for nodes."
"The solution needs to improve the compression side of the application."
"The price could be better. It's not good for the Brazilian market."
"Unfortunately, this product doesn't support Flash Disks, but it's IOPS capacity is a great compromise."
"It could be easier to implement."
"The solution should improve its pricing and the mechanism in the reduction pool."
"I would like to see an improvement in the handling of large amounts of rights."
"When you provision a datastore auto-format takes a long time"
"Events/log analysis tools."
"The storage capacity of this solution could be improved."
"The design is a little old-fashioned and could be updated. The rack is very primitive and designed in an older style."
"We had issues when attempting to do a flash, we hope to resolve it soon."
Huawei OceanStor is ranked 12th in All-Flash Storage with 32 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 6th in All-Flash Storage with 106 reviews. Huawei OceanStor is rated 8.4, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Huawei OceanStor writes "User-friendly and robust storage solution with good performance and easy setup". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". Huawei OceanStor is most compared with Huawei OceanStor Dorado, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and HPE Primera, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell Unity XT and NetApp AFF. See our Huawei OceanStor vs. IBM FlashSystem 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.
