We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and Pure FlashArray X NVMe 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."For us, the most valuable feature is the compression and deduplication. Being able to deploy a three to one ratio for storage is absolutely critical in today's world with the growing need for storage and the growing need for more space."
"The most valuable features of Pure Storage FlashArray are management and administration user-friendliness, provisioning, and performance."
"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."
"Cost, racial per terabyte, and speed is why we chose PureStorage. It was no brainer."
"It is easy to manage. You don't have to have the same people who used to manage the Dell EMC arrays because the solution is more intuitive."
"The most valuable features are the replication of data and the continuous snapshot that we can take from the disc."
"The top-tier support and reliable storage are the most valuable features of this solution."
"It's simple, powerful, and ready to use."
"IBM FlashSystem is flexible, quick, and has a solid design."
"The Flash core models offer amazing performance."
"The most valuable feature in demand is virtualization and its support storage of virtualization features."
"The initial setup is straightforward and can be done in an hour and a half by one person."
"The price-performance ratio is most valuable."
"IBM FlashSystem is a flexible solution with plenty of features."
"Installing FlashSystem is very easy. It takes less than half an hour, and I can handle it all myself."
"Speed (IOPS/second) – It is most vital for applications that need low latency and high speed for transferring the data."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"The Pure1 component is most valuable at this point in time when comparing it with EMC. Pure1 is where you can have your diagnostics in the cloud, so you can look at things from your mobile phone."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"The latency is good."
"Offers excellent features like efficient data reduction, a reliable SafeMode, and a great support model for continuous assistance and updates."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"There are a lot of things to improve."
"I would like some performance analytics which go deeper than today. It should be specific to some hosts and applications. This would be good."
"The integration capabilities could be improved."
"Most of our upgrades have not been as smooth as they should have been."
"It would be nice if Pure had something in its portfolio that provided higher deduplication and compression for backups."
"The price of Pure Storage FlashArray could be better."
"It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure."
"In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption."
"The GUI for monitoring performance metrics could provide better visibility. For example, it doesn't let me segregate the IOPS per volume."
"The marketing could be improved."
"The solution should improve its pricing and the mechanism in the reduction pool."
"Cloud file sharing is an area that needs improvement."
"The pricing needs to be more competitive."
"The solution is quite expensive. That's one of the downsides to using it."
"The interface could improve in IBM FlashSystem."
"It has room for improvement in the area of stability."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"We need better data deduplication."
"The UI for this solution needs to be improved."
"We have run into a couple of instances recently where we are running out of space. So we have had to buy some more packs for it and they have deployed fine and it has increased smoothly."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"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."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 6th in All-Flash Storage with 106 reviews while Pure FlashArray X NVMe is ranked 15th in All-Flash Storage with 28 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while Pure FlashArray X NVMe is rated 9.2. 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 Pure FlashArray X NVMe writes "Works well, is easy to implement, and has upgrade analysis capabilities". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and Huawei OceanStor Dorado, whereas Pure FlashArray X NVMe is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. Pure FlashArray X NVMe report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage 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.