We performed a comparison between HPE 3PAR StoreServ 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."On a scale of one to ten, where ten is the most comfortable pricing, I rate the solution a nine out of ten."
"Non-disruptive upgrades: You can upgrade at anytime without worry."
"The scalability is good."
"The performance is very good."
"The support team is available all the time and they seem to know what they are doing."
"All updates, upgrades, and hardware work are all performed on-line with no impact."
"It helps us maintain uptime much better than other solutions we've used in the past, and the support is extremely quick and responsive."
"The technical support is very good."
"Its stability is the most valuable. It has soft alerts. When an alert is raised, we get a call from HP saying that there is this type of alert, and they need to do a remote session to check things. Similarly, for firmware updates, they get in touch to say that a firmware upgrade is required on your storage. They schedule a time and take control remotely to upgrade the firmware. In all such cases, there is no downtime. Everything is done when a full-fledged operation is going on. Its user interface is also quite good. We are quite accustomed to this user interface. We can easily take a look at the current usage or the amount of storage. It is quite easily understandable, and I can present those things to my seniors or other people who are not that tech-savvy, and they can easily understand what we are trying to tell them. We can easily show them that we are using around 87% of the storage, so we need to plan for another tree and things like that."
"We saved a ton of power just turning off our old one when we went to the new one."
"If you design it right and implement it right, it's headache free. Just keep it there and it does what it's suppose to do."
"From a single panel, I can see the performance of my service, my network, and my storage."
"The Remote Copy Group is amazing for the replication stuff."
"The solution is quite stable and scalable."
"We do not have to take the whole system down to do upgrades."
"We built a DR solution based on this, we can sustain our business for any amount of time, 24/7."
"Adaptive balancing is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature for us is the combining of HA and SnapMirror."
"The strong point is that our clients like this are RadLV (Radiology Low-Value). They also use SnapMirror and MetroCluster."
"Good for NAS and unified solutions."
"It has integrated snapshot and backup capability."
"The solution is easy to use."
"We can manage our applications from a single dashboard."
"It is very flexible. It integrates well with the public cloud and other components, so everything can be API driven. Therefore, it is very easy to automate it."
"The file functionality could be better."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve in the area of cryptographic information in the consoles. The user-friendliness could improve. The Pure Storage FlashArray team should come and log into the system with their maintenance credentials and then pull out the information as evidence of cryptography."
"I would like to see them develop the ability to integrate with more AWS services. There are increasingly more and more services coming out from AWS but there are also certain constraints where we can't move everything over to a cloud as well. We would like for things that are on-premise to be easily integrated with AWS."
"We would like to see more development on their Copy Automation Tool (CAT) for Oracle, as well as better integration for our customers running Oracle VM."
"Larger capacity and more storage ports would be the two things I'd like to see."
"A minor issue that comes to mind is that, every once in a while, a hard drive will go bad."
"A three wave application or multi wave application synchronization would be an improvement."
"Currently, the solution fails to support file screening."
"Sadly, the support from HPE has not been all that great. It is tough to get a tech out or get a response from some of the techs that we have."
"Its price is a bit high for adding another tree."
"HPE could improve by making an old flash system in order to compete with the current market. For the solution to be more competitive in the mid-range market they could increase the performance."
"if it were easier for us to manage the product ourselves without having to get HPE to connect, because it sometimes it does take a bit to get the scheduling worked out with the HPE support. If it were simpler, then it might be easier for us to handle it ourselves."
"The GUI was a little hard to figure out how to use."
"The price of this solution should be lower."
"I would like to see a little bit more integration from a cloud perspective. In this way, I would have some more flexibility to do more with data, how to store it, and where I have it."
"HPE 3PAR StoreServ's pricing could be cheaper."
"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."
"Technical support needs to be improved, as there are no longer partners in our country."
"The product should include an audit log feature."
"The user interface could be improved."
"The AutoSupport could be improved to be more proactive in certain cases."
"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."
"As I see it, there could be more interfaces, more cache, etc."
HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 6th in NAS with 299 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 2nd in NAS with 98 reviews. HPE 3PAR StoreServ is rated 8.6, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. 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 NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers good performance and ". HPE 3PAR StoreServ is most compared with HPE Primera, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, NetApp AFF and HPE StoreOnce, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), NetApp AFF, HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and VAST Data. See our HPE 3PAR StoreServ 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.