We performed a comparison between Dell PowerMax NVMe and Pure FlashArray X NVMe based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is efficient and very simple for our administrators to use."
"You can use PowerMax for all workloads and consolidation. We have used it to scale thousands of VMs."
"We were able to move away from a middleware solution for high availability, going right to snapshots and data replication on arrays."
"This platform is reliable in supporting our data availability. We now have a higher performing platform and have been able to consolidate our workloads into one single platform."
"It is very stable. We expect superior performance and reliability from this particular storage system."
"It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten."
"The optimization of the cache memory of each engine and the use of persistent memory."
"The performance is very good. Our predominant workloads are all less than 5 milliseconds and it's most common to have a sub-1-millisecond response time for our applications. In terms of efficiency, we've turned on compression and we're able to get as high as two-to-one compression on our workloads, on average."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"The solution is scalable."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"The latency is good."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The initial setup process is difficult."
"The solution does not use new versions of OS and patches. Its installation is also difficult. The solution is not as fast as other storage in the market."
"Dell PowerMax NVMe is costly compared to other solutions."
"They should work with the storage engineers to better tweak the management tools to give them improved visibility into their data."
"The main feature that I personally want to see is the possibility to upgrade to the next generation without changing all the components and just change the engine, relying on the compatibility matrices between two different generations. Meaning that we could just keep the enclosure and upgrade the engine, integrating the enclosure to the existing pool, then adding automation tools for orchestration."
"There are definitely some improvements that can be made to the CloudIQ."
"I would like to see more development in the cloud environment. It would be good if it comes in the cloud kind of setup."
"The NVMe integration could be improved."
"We would like to see more visibility into garbage collection and CPU performance in the GUI."
"We would like to see VNC integration or be able to use Pure Storage with VNC."
"Every time I think of something that needs to improve, they're one step ahead, which I love. The only area I wish to see improve, I believe is coming, is in the FlashBlade product. Blade implementation fell short on a few of the services."
"We need better data deduplication."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in catering to midrange storage needs, especially for customers seeking Enterprise-class features."
Dell PowerMax NVMe is ranked 3rd in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 66 reviews while Pure FlashArray X NVMe is ranked 6th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 28 reviews. Dell PowerMax NVMe is rated 8.8, while Pure FlashArray X NVMe is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Dell PowerMax NVMe writes "Simplified storage provisioning for us, enabling us to assign any volumes in two to three minutes". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure FlashArray X NVMe writes "Reasonably priced, scales well, and offers good stability". Dell PowerMax NVMe is most compared with Dell PowerStore, IBM FlashSystem, Dell Unity XT, Pure Storage FlashArray and Huawei OceanStor Dorado, whereas Pure FlashArray X NVMe is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, Pure Storage FlashArray and TrueNAS R-Series. See our Dell PowerMax NVMe vs. Pure FlashArray X NVMe report.
See our list of best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.
