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."The predictive performance analytics is a very good feature, as our system is performing better than before."
"The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is its high stability level."
"Performance, dedupe, and that it works well with database workloads are its most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is the all-flash storage performance, low latency, and efficiency of their de-duplication technology. Additionally, the ease of use is good compared to other storage systems. The features in data protection, snapshotting, and replication between data centers and sites are superior to other solutions."
"All our junior partners can administer the storage arrays. It is simple and easy to use. We don't have to dedicate a whole team of full time people to work on it."
"Technical support is good."
"I like its speed. It has all the features that I need."
"Provides fast access and is user-friendly."
"In the deployment of virtual servers, I can have a new VM up and running in 15 minutes, run the patches, then done. I routinely fire up base images that I have for my servers: Server 2008 R2, 2012 R2, and 2016. I routinely fire those base images up and do all the updates, then prep them again for cloning. With 3PAR, we definitely have the performance to do that. Those images I do keep on SSD just to have that performance to deploy a new VM."
"The support is really fast. There is very good support for 3PAR storage."
"We use all the features, but some of the most valuable are the replication, priority optimization, provisioning, and deduplication. There are a lot of good features in this product."
"We can do more, faster, whether it's spinning up more virtual machines or handling large amounts of data."
"The technical support is very good."
"The technical support is good."
"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."
"Being able to provision drives on demand, as opposed to populating a whole stack of drives and not using them. In the latter scenario, you are locking your money in, you don't get a return on investment. On the fly, you can build up your storage as needed, so that's a very good feature."
"The most valuable features are compression and dedupe."
"The storage efficiency provided a maximum savings in our storage utilization."
"The replication feature is noteworthy because it's faster than most and it uses little bandwidth. Then there's the friendly interface that the equipment offers. With this interface, it is very easy to manage."
"It's a stable product. No issues there."
"End-users like that they can rely on the Snapshot technology so they can do their restores themselves."
"A reliable and easily managed storage system is a key performance factor. The system also has more features than we require."
"Snapshot, deduplication, and compression features are valuable."
"The file sharing feature is most valuable."
"We would like to see better troubleshooting aspects. It helps us if we can find out where the problem is. Right now, it's difficult. Sometimes it's difficult to pinpoint the issue. If they had more visibility and more troubleshooting feature built into the tool that would really help."
"Data reduction is an area that needs improvement. There is a garbage collection service that runs but during that time, system utilization increases."
"Its price needs improvement. Its price is almost double than any other flash storage solution."
"We understand that they're thinking about it, but one of the things that would be nice is if they added some basic file-level capabilities to the platform. The idea is that they would run a basic NFS or CIF share from the controllers. FlashBlade is the powerhouse for File and Object storage, but if you don't need all that power, a lightweight file function would make FlashArrays more versatile."
"The price of the solution can improve."
"When we were doing some tests, we found that there was an I/O freeze when they were switching the controller."
"It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure."
"What it needs to do is work a little closer with solutions, like VMware, so it understands the particular workloads that are on it. Today, it does not understand the applications which are running against it."
"The solution could improve by being more secure."
"Extending is not a problem, scalability is okay. But once you buy additional box of disks, you have to wait for HPE to contact you with their plan for implementation, for connecting, and it can take several weeks. So, you have the box and you have to wait for several weeks to actually implement it."
"There are issues formulating the upgraded disk."
"It is suitable for medium-sized businesses and data centers with less number of users and less important data. It is not really an enterprise-level solution. It needs more capacity. It is also not really stable. It should be more stable. It should also support any server model. It is really weak in this area."
"This solution is becoming dated."
"The solution could improve by being able to handle larger data."
"The tool needs improvement in the utilization report at the granular level."
"I would like to see an automatic re-balancing system or functionality for adaptive optimization."
"The solution can improve on the replication features."
"Cost is always a factor. Some people choose EMC or Dell because they perceive NetApp as being more expensive."
"They should add new features to the product."
"Its operating system is very cumbersome. However, after you set it up, it runs pretty smoothly. Its file system is not very dynamic. It is very static."
"The adoption of flash by NetApp has also been lagging behind the trendsetters, like TMS, Nimble, and others."
"Dedicated storage efficiency accelerators could improve the overall performance of the system."
"The product should improve its user experience."
"It's not a cheap system. It is very expensive. The pricing has been ridiculous every time that we had to renew the support."
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.