We performed a comparison between Hitachi VSP E Series and NetApp AFF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"It is very easy to install and configure. It has got excellent diagnostics. If you really need to see how the box is performing, the console gives you a lot of information. You can set thresholds as well as alerts based on the thresholds, which is a very powerful functionality. They are very proactive. They know how to monitor and manage the systems. They see a problem, and they are all over it before us. They see the problem before we see it, which is very good."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"Pure has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"Its user-friendly configuration and maintenance processes contribute to its reputation for being straightforward and easily manageable."
"We are using the Hitachi VSP E Series for high IOPS."
"It offers good file sharing."
"The stability is solid. It doesn't fail on us, which is exactly what we want. We are in a critical business that we can't have any percentage of downtime."
"Scalability is excellent. If we need more space, it's a no downtime solution. It's harder to get the funding than it is to get the solution itself."
"The performance. The flash performance helps move data pretty fast."
"AFF works well for VMware storage."
"The most valuable feature is the support. If we have any issues, we can call into NetApp and their support is really good."
"NetApp AFF is based on Unix, which makes it secure."
"If you need a replacement part, they will provide it."
"The ease of use, the SnapMirror capabilities, the cloning, and the efficiencies are all good features."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"I'd like to see the product implement active replication for vehicles such as VMware."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"Every time I think of something that needs to improve, they're one step ahead, which I love. The only area I wish to see improve, I believe is coming, is in the FlashBlade product. Blade implementation fell short on a few of the services."
"If the customer only needs 500 terabytes and doesn't care how much data they'll put in the server, IBM is cheaper than Pure."
"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."
"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."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"The solution's support duration or end-of-support life is very short."
"There is room for improvement in simplifying the overall complexity of the environment."
"The graphical user interface is somewhat outdated, lacking some of the modern features found in other solutions."
"It would be helpful if the compatibility matrix was a bit better."
"NetApp AFF could improve SAN storage because it feels as if it was not put together at the beginning, it functions as an afterthought. Additionally, the cloud features could be more mature."
"Its integration could be improved."
"Cleaning up false positives on alerts. We get a lot of those."
"There needs to be compatibility with upgraded applications. We don't want the system to be upgraded, but not have backwards compatible to existing applications."
"I just got through the session where it looks like they are going to support Oracle running on Linux with SnapCenter. That is one of the main things that we are hoping to get integrated."
"One minor improvement could be making scale-up solutions with AFF more cost-effective compared to scale-out options."
"I need faster Fibre Channel over Ethernet. They top out at 10GBs today and I would like that to go to 40 or 100."
Hitachi VSP E Series is ranked 14th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 3 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 280 reviews. Hitachi VSP E Series is rated 6.4, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Hitachi VSP E Series writes "A stable NVMe storage solution that can be used for high IOPS". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". Hitachi VSP E Series is most compared with Dell PowerStore and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Pure Storage FlashArray and VMware vSAN. See our Hitachi VSP E Series vs. NetApp AFF report.
See our list of best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors.
We monitor all NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.
