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.
"It has benefited my organization because it has reduced time to insights."
"One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"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."
"It has good, reliable, fast storage."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"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."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"The support is really fast. There is very good support for 3PAR storage."
"This solution has given us improved application uptime and performance."
"It all works in concert using Recovery Manager Central (RMC). HPE coordinates it all, so it is more of a solution instead of products trying to do things together."
"The tool is fast and easy to use. You can also configure it easily. The product also has good performance tuning."
"Being able to snapshot things for backup purposes has been key. We do that on our databases four times a day."
"The solution is quite stable and scalable."
"We use a virtual domain in 3PAR and we can create individual pools where clients are able to manage their own resources, instead of we, as storage admin, getting involved in that."
"Previously, we were using EVA from HPE. When we moved to 3PAR, we noticed a reduction in footprint, reduced by more than 30%. We use the Adaptive Optimization, giving us a reduction in cost and with better performance."
"It is very easy to implement."
"HPE StoreOnce works well, it is stable."
"The solution's licensing policy is more practical and not confusing."
"Deduplication is the most valuable feature."
"Deduplication and compression are in a good ratio. It supports the HPE Catalyst protocol, which is much faster than NFS and other protocols. We use CommVault and Veeam, and these two solutions support the Catalyst protocol very well and are integrated at high speed. It is faster than normal access."
"The implementation is straightforward."
"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 most valuable features are the deduplication and compression capabilities."
"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."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"The software layer has to improve."
"I want to see Pure Storage not only be for fast storage, but I want to see it be for the entire data center."
"Our use cases require more multi-tenant capabilities and additional VLAN interfaces for separating different customers. We currently use it to provide storage, sometimes shared storage, to different customers, but it is less flexible in comparison to a dedicated solution."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"The cloud-based monitoring Infosight would be better if users are automatically enrolled in the cloud/group based on the configuration or information gathered or uploaded on the internet."
"We did a firmware upgrade, and it brought the whole sandbox down. It was supposed to be done transparently, and that did not happen. It was not like we did it on our own; we had support set it up for us."
"The initial setup was pretty complex. There were a lot of different things that had to happen which was the reason why they had to send out the HPE engineers to help us."
"Anything new can be complex. There were some things in the initial deployment that I was not happy about. One of my directives was, "However, it's configured, ensure that it can never be overprovisioned." That one key thing was overlooked. This is why I had to have a support call last year, because it actually became overprovisioned and I had to move some stuff around."
"I give it an eight because of the support, that I can't get support in my country. This is the worst part. Support cannot be sold until we are out of the sanctions."
"The price is a little bit high."
"3PAR needs to keep on increasing its capacity."
"We would like to see a bigger integration with the Nimble Storage solution, so we can take our smaller regional companies and be able to send them into our bigger data centers and have everything work seamlessly."
"The product could be improved with better support for data protection."
"Agnostic backups."
"One item I wanted to see is SSD drives as a cache, and that was, for a time, still lacking in StoreOnce, however, they have done it now. It's not available yet, however, it will be shortly."
"improvement? HPE StoreOnce has a limitation with respect to controllers. Other tools offer more than one controller. I feel that the high availability of the view controller should be redundant. The tool’s control and UI part should be improved and made more advanced. The feature that helps with the manual movement of tapes should also be improved."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"Cloud integration needs to be simplified."
"When it comes to upgrading, it always goes block-wise. One block is 48 TB raw capacity. It would be good if they can include a smaller capacity for SMB customers. Currently, it is not possible to increase in a smaller capacity. You have to buy the exact same unit. It would be great if they can provide a smaller next block. There are around 20 hard disks, and it would be really helpful if we can add 10 hard disks initially and 10 hard disks later."
"They could provide more options for storage capacity."
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.
