We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp Private Storage 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 most valuable features of IBM FlashSystem are performance and security."
"Most of the features for the reduction in data compression are useful. It is also very easy to use and administer. Its performance is also good."
"The valuable features for us are the extra add-ons, such as the FIM provisioning, the compression, the disaster recovery capabilities, and the storage pooling functions."
"The most crucial feature of IBM FlashSystem is compression."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is compression."
"The installation is nice and easy."
"The most valuable features are, of course, the virtualization of the storage, the performance, and the compression."
"The performance of IBM FlashSystem is very good. The new technology and high throughput have given us more confidence in the solution. The management of the system has improved and we can control the monitoring system alerts and multiple FlashSystems with the Enterprise Cloud Edition, which is free. The migration of recently stored data to a new flash is much easier. You can move your data because you can utilize it externally."
"As opposed to cloud, we have full control over security, use, who uses it. We own a number of different companies, so we can partition however we want."
"The most valuable feature is integration."
"At the moment, we are extensively using SnapMirror."
"It gave us a platform which could clearly arrange all our files and volumes."
"NetApp has really added a lot of features over the years to improve the product and performance. They can do things now like control ingress. They can control egress."
"The most valuable feature of NetApp Private Storage is out-of-the-box integration with the SAN switches. They are much easier compared to Dell solutions. Additionally, the connector that comes with the solution that allows connection back to the Cisco SAN switches is very good. In Dell, I would need to use an FCIP or CIP port that is required."
"The solution scales well."
"NetApp has its own dedicated operating system, so it will not be affected by any wireless piggybacking or malware. That's the beauty of NetApp's operating system."
"I would like to see an improvement in the handling of large amounts of rights."
"They can improve its initial configuration. The initial configuration is currently very difficult. There are multiple choices or alternative ways to configure based on the use case and what you are targeting out of the device, that is, more capacity or more performance. These multiple alternatives cause a lot of confusion. They should increase the processing part of the nodes. Currently, you can cluster up to eight nodes. From my experience and the workload that I am facing in my environment currently, I would like to see either a bigger or stronger node or a larger number of nodes that can be clustered together. We formally communicated to them that we need to see either this or that, and they are working on something."
"The design is a little old-fashioned and could be updated. The rack is very primitive and designed in an older style."
"Our model does not support compression or deduplication."
"This solution could be improved by offering greater amounts of storage."
"I think the only thing the developers can look at, is that it is limited to 25 gigabytes currently. In the next release they might want to increase that."
"The solution is quite expensive. That's one of the downsides to using it."
"The installation is not easy. You need to have extensive knowledge to handle it."
"I think that it should work better with Microsoft solutions, more integrated with Microsoft. We also need integrated NAS and block storage."
"I'm not sure how easy it is to use on the cloud versus on-prem. If they have different user experiences, they should work to make the two as similar as possible to make it easy for a user to understand both even if they only deal mainly with one."
"They need a little more technical people in Akola. Most of the NetApp people are in Bangalore, Mumbai, or Delhi, but there are very few in Akola. I think NetApp has few technicians in Akola because they mostly rely on partners to service this area."
"I would like to have the Active-Active feature. Some competitors already have it. I would like NetApp to add it to stay competitive."
"The users find the new version's GUI complicated to use."
"The solution could improve by having better support experts. For example, they do not have clear instructions on configuration."
"We had to write a number of custom tools or scripts ourselves to use it as a staging area between our on-premises datacenter and our cloud installation."
"There is room for improvement in the support. It has been a problem for our team."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews while NetApp Private Storage is ranked 12th in NAS with 14 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp Private Storage is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp Private Storage writes "Integrates well, useful connectors, and straightforward implemention". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, whereas NetApp Private Storage is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and NetApp FAS Series. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp Private Storage report.
See our list of best NAS 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.
