We performed a comparison between NetApp AFF and Tintri VMstore T7000 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."The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"Pure has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps to improve our processing speed. It is user-friendly and easy to use."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"It has benefited my organization because it has reduced time to insights."
"The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The solution’s thin provisioning has allowed us to add new applications without having to purchase additional storage. We use thin provisioning for everything. We use the deduplication compression functionality for all of our NetApps. If we weren't using thin provisioning, we'd probably have two to times more storage on our floor right now than we do today."
"The speed is great. That's probably number one in terms of features we appreciate."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"The most important features are the IOPS and the ease of the ONTAP manageability."
"It is stable. In my three years working with the storage, I haven't seen any issues with our NetApp product."
"NetApp AFF handles tier-one workloads, including home drives, departmental shares, group shares, and application shares."
"Technical support has been okay."
"Our AFF 8040 is currently helping us in terms of response time and speed because it is a flash system. Most importantly, it enables our SQL Cluster to respond to database queries and things a lot faster. It minimizes latency."
"It’s very good at IOPS."
"Its performance is amazing. Since I have put Tintri in, I haven't had a complaint from anybody about slowness. On top of that, there is block-level cloning and the ability to spin up VMs."
"We have been able to scale up to ten VM storages and 500 VMs through a single pane of glass."
"We love the real-time replication, ease of use when connecting our servers to the storage, and the level of redundancy inside the box... It's also simple software and integrates well with VMware so we get a lot of information about all of the VMs, how they're performing individually, and about network latency. That's very helpful when you're troubleshooting a slowdown."
"Simplicity of installation and management, high IOPS, management per VM, QoS, power and space saving."
"We also find the detail per-vm reporting at the ability to see reports from the hypervisor straight back to the storage useful."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution was how fast it worked on behalf of VDI desktops."
"The most valuable feature is the VM management."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"We need better data deduplication."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"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."
"Tech support is great with NetApp if you can get past Tier 1. A lot of times when you open a new case or do a direct dial-in with an issue, like with any support, you will definitely reach a Tier 1 level that is not particularly helpful until you get escalated to an expert."
"We would like to have NVMe on FabricPool working because it broke our backups. We enabled FabricPool to do the tiering from our AFFs to our Webscale but it sort of broke our Cobalt backups."
"In terms of improvement, IO performance could use some enhancement."
"I would like to see the ability to include more applications from applications to managed storage. If we can have more applications or more interface in more applications, that would be great."
"Better stability, not releasing features until they are fully functional, or at least giving us a software train that doesn't add them until they are fully functional and proven."
"The support documentation has room for improvement."
"I don't work on the technical side of things, so it's hard for me to highlight areas of improvement, but maybe the price could be a little better."
"The total cost of ownership has increased a little."
"The product could be improved by adding iSCSI support. We have had to rethink how we implement some of our services due to this."
"Detailed reporting is missing in the current version. We would like to see this feature added in a new release."
"Tintri's Cloud Connector currently only goes to AWS and IBM Cloud, and we don't use either because we're Microsoft Silver Partners. It would be great to get the Cloud Connector feature with Azure. If it's not already on Tintri's roadmap, that's something I'd like to see."
"The Tintri OS and GlobalCenter software do a great job of showing you troubled VMs, however it still could be a bit more helpful in diagnosing the issues."
"We need more options to integrate with cloud storage options other than the current AWS and IBM that it currently supports."
"Their current replication is really just enough to "check the box" that they do replication. We'll probably implement Actifio, Zerto or EMC RecoverPoint for VMs for more critical data replication."
"Speed of our VDI machines. We have a very high log in and log out ratio and machines are being refreshed instantly so we have a constant boot storm on our storage."
"What I feel would be nice, in terms of a wishlist, is scalability. Rather than replacing the whole appliance, I would like to be able to just add another unit and scale it like that."
NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 281 reviews while Tintri VMstore T7000 is ranked 14th in All-Flash Storage with 61 reviews. NetApp AFF is rated 9.0, while Tintri VMstore T7000 is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tintri VMstore T7000 writes "We were able to push a button—it really is that simple—and flip primary and secondary storage locations". NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Pure Storage FlashArray and VMware vSAN, whereas Tintri VMstore T7000 is most compared with Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell PowerStore, HPE Nimble Storage, VMware vSAN and DDN IntelliFlash. See our NetApp AFF vs. Tintri VMstore T7000 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.
