We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays 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."
"Overall stability is very good. It is a very stable solution."
"The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"The latency is good."
"The standout features for us in Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its robust DDoS protection, seamless transparent failover, and failback capabilities ensuring high availability."
"The duplication algorithm allows us to get a lot more use out of less storage. We're running a five terabyte array right now and we're running probably about 30 terabytes on it. So the duplication rate is pretty phenomenal, without a cost to performance. It still runs pretty smoothly."
"The most valuable features of Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its superior performance compared to other flash tiers, as well as its ease of use, with an intuitive user interface that is simple to deploy and use."
"One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"IBM FlashSystem is the best solution for storage virtualization."
"No queuing and high ops, speed, and performance."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and performance."
"IBM FlashSystem has an easy to use GUI, similar to the IBM Storewize family, which make it one of the best flash storage systems in the market."
"The initial setup is straightforward and can be done in an hour and a half by one person."
"The performance monitoring feature is useful as it can report in 15 minute intervals by hour, day, week, month, or by a custom date range."
"IBM FlashSystem is a stable solution."
"The solution allows for easy migrations from previous products or vendors via its embedded storage virtualization function."
"The stability, speed, and reliability are the solution's best features. The information is also very secure."
"The main advantage of this solution is performance."
"The management software is very good."
"Some of the valuable features include MetroCluster switchover, in terms of disaster recovery, it is easy to use, and flexible."
"We do a lot of in-house, application-dependent type things, where we find the different niches to the different things. Certain things they do better. We've found that it actually does very well on some of our higher-end applications."
"The initial setup is pretty straightforward."
"The replication and mirroring features are very good."
"One of the most valuable features is the overall performance it provides. You're able to throw a pile of IOPS at it and it will handle that without much issue."
"We would like to see VNC integration or be able to use Pure Storage with VNC."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"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."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified."
"We need better data deduplication."
"In the future, I would like to see integration with enterprise backup systems."
"Cloud file sharing is an area that needs improvement."
"This solution needs a management console where we are alerted to issues and can report them, or escalate them through email or another method."
"Include an option to upload the support package to the IBM ECuRep when opening an IBM PMR."
"They don't offer subscription-based payments."
"Product support is restricted to IBM only. It must be decentralized to IBM partners as well."
"The solution is not able to replicate data in one-to-many scenario."
"We use some open-source tools for monitoring, such as Grafana and it should be bundled along with IBM FlashSystem."
"The generic functionality of IBM FlashSystem, IBM always dismisses using file share or sharing protocols inside their storage hardware, and they only focus on the block-level storage."
"As far as the manageability, being able to port between the two and have to do less training in-house from a customer point of view, that would be the part to improve."
"This solution does not have any compression or deduplication."
"I've observed an issue when creating a new storage solution with NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays."
"I would like to shrink it more, if we can. The smaller, the better."
"The only major drawback is the replication between EF-Series units."
"We need a center related to NetApp in Egypt so that we can deal with them directly."
"A little more manageability, a simpler management interface. It's not necessarily that it's way overly complex. It's just that it's not as easy as the FAS series."
"Things like the FlexClones, SnapVault, SnapMirror, all of that. Some of it's available on the EF series, but we like what we have in the FAS system."
More NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays Pricing and Cost Advice →
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 6th in All-Flash Storage with 106 reviews while NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is ranked 23rd in All-Flash Storage with 38 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is rated 8.6. 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 EF-Series All Flash Arrays writes "A storage solution that offers great stability, resilience, and support". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell Unity XT and NetApp AFF, whereas NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and HPE Primera. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays 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.
