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."It helps to simplify storage because it has an easy front-end to access everything."
"The management features are well organized and they have a very good dashboard."
"Running SAP on Pure Storage helps a lot without doing any further tuning to improve application performance. Our internal clients are happy."
"It gives us capacity planning."
"We have tons of capacity on it."
"We like the speed. It's very low latency. In virtualization, you can mask lots of problems, and even in code you can mask lots of problems, with low latency. It's just pure speed and low latency."
"The first set up we had was really straight forward and simple."
"The performance is very good."
"It was straightforward, simple, and easy to set up, along with the OneView tools, for managing both compute and storage."
"Very recently, we are able to do a lot of data center automation by being able to script some of the 3PAR actions for our private cloud."
"The solution is quite stable and scalable."
"The predictive analytics, where we're getting notifications prior to a failure has been helpful."
"Its performance is good. We have a lot of applications that have high I/O, and 3PAR handles those with no problem."
"It is very easy to manage. I can provision disks and monitor the performance easily."
"The product stands on its own in heavy enterprise environments."
"The overall quality of the product is fantastic. Advanced Optimization is one of the best features I never thought I needed until I actually used it and saw it in action."
"You can use different protocols at the same time. Monitoring is also very easy in NetApp FAS Series. There is a free tool for monitoring."
"The storage efficiency provided a maximum savings in our storage utilization."
"Fast Snapshots"
"I like the unified management feature because sometimes you end up running a single protocol on the entire system."
"The most valuable feature for us is the combining of HA and SnapMirror."
"The product is user-friendly and helps to evaluate the performance of each node. It ensures that if one node encounters an issue, the system can immediately redistribute the workload without interruptions. This setup provides uninterrupted operation for our systems."
"It's a stable product. No issues there."
"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."
"We do have an issue with the vCenter integration. Pure Storage says it has a lot of free space, but vCenter says its completely full. This is because their dedupes are saved as space, but Vcenter still detects the disk as completely full. So, we do have an issue with that."
"I recognize it's a difficult challenge, but I would like to see them make the pricing more reasonable."
"Historical analytics would be useful. At the moment, they don't have any type of application built for historical analytics."
"Storage. There could be better storage."
"I would like some performance analytics which go deeper than today. It should be specific to some hosts and applications. This would be good."
"Part of our company works on Dell EMC because Pure Storage did not have synchronous applications when we were purchasing our products."
"I would like to see some improvements on the FlashBlade side around the CIFS space support. I am not super familiar with all the different NAS protocols that they run on their box, but there could be some improvements made on SMB CIFS side."
"The connectivity needs improvement. You do not have the possibility to have a file and block connectivity at the same time on the same machine. It has limited ability to do so."
"It's a very complex platform to manage and it's not cheap either. It doesn't really give us the level of flexibility we had for very, very small workloads."
"We have had some bad issues on stability."
"The tool needs improvement in the utilization report at the granular level."
"I would like to see the ability to be able to migrate to newer versions of the 3PAR without having to take any of our data offline and be able to upgrade on the fly."
"HPE 3PAR StoreServ could have better integration into the cloud and converged infrastructure."
"I would like to have more details on alerting. It is not real granular right now. What It gives you is sort of basic, and we can't do a lot of tweaking on our own. We would like to be able to tweak some of the alerts for our team."
"3PAR has StoreOnce and replication. I would like it if they worked together. Or, if I had Nimble and put that either in DR or a primary cohesive management, but still use the cool features of 3PAR, that would be awesome."
"We would like to see deduplication and hybrid in the next release of the solution."
"The WAFL is slow."
"It could be more flexible in terms of configuration."
"For long term partnership in Myanmar, the local warehouse should be built in Myanmar that's something I'd like to see. We have some issues with supply so there is sometimes a delay in getting the hardware."
"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."
"Cost is always a factor. Some people choose EMC or Dell because they perceive NetApp as being more expensive."
"NetApp systems are somewhat more complex, though not excessively so. If you're transitioning from a Windows server environment to NetApp, get training or education; otherwise, you might struggle with this solution."
"We would like to have further integration with some backup products. They have some of them already, but there could be more."
"There are some technical limitations, but it would be great to have in-line deduplication and in-line compression for the FAS series as well."
HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 6th in NAS with 299 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 2nd in NAS with 97 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 and NetApp AFF, 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.