We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp FAS Series based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."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."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"Pure has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator."
"The solution is scalable."
"Overall stability is very good. It is a very stable solution."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"Over the years, it has become increasingly user-friendly."
"The compression and deduplication features are the most valuable."
"No queuing and high ops, speed, and performance."
"IBM FlashSystem has been stable in our operations."
"It's a mature product. It's like a BMW that evolves consistently."
"The price-performance ratio is most valuable."
"Speed (IOPS/second) – It is most vital for applications that need low latency and high speed for transferring the data."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and performance."
"The new FAS series is a good fit for some customers. We have good performance and capacity, even though it is full flash."
"Good for NAS and unified solutions."
"I like the unified management feature because sometimes you end up running a single protocol on the entire system."
"It has integrated snapshot and backup capability."
"The most valuable feature for us is the combining of HA and SnapMirror."
"I have found all the features useful in NetApp FAS Series."
"A reliable and easily managed storage system is a key performance factor. The system also has more features than we require."
"The most valuable features are compression and dedupe."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"We would like to see VNC integration or be able to use Pure Storage with VNC."
"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 need better data deduplication."
"The UI for this solution needs to be improved."
"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."
"I want to see Pure Storage not only be for fast storage, but I want to see it be for the entire data center."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"Replication features need improvement. Currently, they are there in the product, but I'm not sure as to how it works exactly."
"This solution could be improved by offering greater amounts of storage."
"When you provision a datastore auto-format takes a long time"
"The installation is not easy. You need to have extensive knowledge to handle it."
"I would like to see an improvement in the handling of large amounts of rights."
"The basic setup can be challenging when it comes to certain IP addresses and the configuration of the IP. You have to go in to different menus to makes changes and ensure it is stable."
"The marketing could be improved."
"This product lacks some of the options we wanted. For example, expansion was difficult and it required a lot of patching to be done."
"For long term partnership in Myanmar, the local warehouse should be built in Myanmar that's something I'd like to see. We have some issues with supply so there is sometimes a delay in getting the hardware."
"Needs to improve the adaptive storage quality of service."
"It's not a cheap system. It is very expensive. The pricing has been ridiculous every time that we had to renew the support."
"Needs to add wizards for newer, inexperienced users."
"I would like to see less latency and higher IOPS."
"The one aspect of the solution that's negative for us is also more unique to us due to the fact that we did a MetroCluster. The tiebreaker piece that does the monitoring of the two different locations, and determines if one is not talking to the network normally (or if it's truly down) is a little difficult. It feels like it was not designed from the beginning to fit well into the other pieces. It feels like it was thrown in at the last minute and it is not smooth."
"There is room for improvement in deployment and configuration processes."
"We have some experience with older equipment end-of-life. For example, when warranty support stops or updates stop – it can be frustrating. Not all clients can buy a new filer every year or two, and NetApp ending support a bit quickly can be a concern."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 2nd in NAS with 98 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers good performance and ". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and HPE StorageWorks MSA, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), NetApp AFF, HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and HPE StoreEasy. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp FAS Series report.
See our list of best NAS vendors, best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors, and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all NAS 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.