We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and NetApp AFF 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 feature is test performance. It helps us store large amounts of data along with providing us faster retrieval of data."
"Processes that used to take 40 minutes to two hours can be completed in five minutes."
"The most valuable features are extremely low latency, high IOPS with VMware, inline deduplication and compression."
"Performance, dedupe, and that it works well with database workloads are its most valuable features."
"It is fast and reliable. It works."
"They are quite responsive and our local team was pretty good."
"The scalability options are very nice because you can scale it much better and faster. The scalability was there in the previous environment also, but this is far better than what we had before. It basically helps the user in case they are looking for more storage. We can scale it much faster."
"The speed is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The most valuable feature is that it has 'eight nines' availability, 99.999999 percent of the time. That is the main selling point."
"The biggest benefit of the Hitachi platform is 100 percent storage uptime. It's also highly cost-effective."
"The feature I like best is the stability of the hardware."
"The efficiency ratio is just as high as advertised. It's very high relative to other storage solutions as well. The compression and deduplication capabilities are also very high."
"The solution provides excellent scalability."
"This is one of the most reliable and dependable products on the market."
"The most valuable features are external storage virtualization and the 100 percent data guaranteed availability."
"It is robust. It doesn't need too much troubleshooting. It is a good device."
"Batch times went from approximately seven hours down to about two and a half. Functionality during the day, such as taking or removing snapshots and cloning instances, is higher than it has ever been."
"NetApp AFF's flash technology offers great performance. This feature has been my go-to for managing data and ensuring speed and reliability."
"There are many reports accessing the applications. We receive them very quickly. We used to wait a long time for them. Now, you just need to wait a moment."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to do QoS."
"The in-line dedupe, and the compaction saves us a lot of space because most of our AFFs house VMware VMDK files."
"We do a lot of financial modeling. We have a large compute cluster that generates a lot of files. It is important for us to get a quick response back for any type of multimillion file accesses across the cluster at one time. So, it's a lot quicker to do that. We found that solid-state performs so much better than than spinning drives, even over multiple clusters."
"I'm from Germany, so we have lots of metro clusters. The ability to have two sides that are redundant across hundreds or thousands of kilometers is critical for our customers. We have several hundred customers with metro cluster systems, so that is one of the best features."
"The most valuable feature is the support. If we have any issues, we can call into NetApp and their support is really good."
"When we were doing some tests, we found that there was an I/O freeze when they were switching the controller."
"In the configuration, which we brought in or tested it in, it has a very limited config as far as the array goes. That said, it still did more than our anticipation."
"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."
"Beyond a certain amount of petabytes, you have to have a separate system. Basically, it's not infinitely scalable."
"There are a lot of things to improve."
"In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption."
"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 think replication is one area that still needs improvement. Earlier, Pure Storage FlashArray only had IP-based replication. There was no API-based replication, but they have enhanced the feature now. However, they need to work on API replication for C-type of arrays."
"Its usability can be improved. It can have more management features. Its management tools lack features."
"One improvement I am hoping for in the next release is unified storage."
"The snapshot and clone operation functions can be made easier."
"The user interface should be made simpler because it is difficult to manage."
"The distributor needs more knowledgeable resources for technical support. It would be better to connect directly to the vendor in case of queries."
"I would like to see an audit account set up such that the user can log in, see the configuration, and see the logs, but they cannot make any changes."
"For mission critical issues the performance is low."
"One problem is that there are too many management tools for the F Series and for all the other Hitachi storage systems. There are four or five such solutions. Maybe these could be combined in the future."
"NetApp could focus even more on the configuration."
"The only downside to NetApp AFF is its price."
"I would like to see aggregate level encryption in the next release. This is critical."
"I really don't have anything to ask for in this regard, because we're not really pushing the envelope on any of our use cases. NetApp is really staying out ahead of all of our needs. I believe that there were firmware issues. I think it was just a mismatch of things that were going on. It could have possibly been something in the deployment process that wasn't done exactly right."
"The stability is good but there is room for improvement with other options."
"We only had a few upgrade issues."
"Customer service is one area of the product line where I would love to see improvement. I have had several vendor experiences with NetApp where I faced challenges in the initial call trying to navigate the requirements of the service level expectation. Their response could be better improved. However, the final result is great. It is just the initial support level where improvement would help to effectively solve problems."
"We installed NetSender to test it. I think it could be a good solution. It is very small now, but will probably become bigger in the next few months to years."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 10th in All-Flash Storage with 48 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "It's a high-performing solution with strong architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and NetApp FAS Series, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and Huawei OceanStor Dorado. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. NetApp AFF report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors and best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.