We performed a comparison between NetApp AFF and Tintri VMstore 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.
"We are very happy with the data deduplication and compression ratio that we have on the platform."
"We like the data reduction rates. That has been really helpful. You get 4U of Pure storage replacing something like two racks of spinning disks. One of the things that has contributed to that are the data reduction rates."
"It does efficient work of storing data while still delivering the performance that you would normally expect from a higher priced solution."
"The most valuable features in Pure Storage FlashArray are deduplication and active cluster."
"The most valuable features are extremely low latency, high IOPS with VMware, inline deduplication and compression."
"This solution has improved our organization in the way that we used to see latency but now with this solution we don't. It also has good performance. Latencies have come down for our performance in the SQL databases. We can put a lot more in a lot less in terms of space savings. We also save data center space have good deduplication."
"It upgrades in place which means we'll be using it well into the future."
"Very stable; no worries about how much it can handle."
"We are spending less time putting out fires, so there's a tangible benefit right there."
"The performance is the most valuable feature."
"My favorite part is all-flash solid drives. All of my applications are running on an all-flash array. Before, we used to get too many severity tickets on performance, but as soon as we migrated everything to an all-flash array, our critical applications are at top performance."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is data protection and snapshot technology for backup."
"I think that the DR applications are the most valuable, including Snapshots and SnapMirror."
"We are a large-scale company, and our growth has been pretty significant over the last five or six years. We like the scale, and the way NetApp grows, so that's why we use it. It's mostly for block storage."
"I like NetApp AFF's deduplication."
"NetApp AFF handles tier-one workloads, including home drives, departmental shares, group shares, and application shares."
"Its VM-aware features have been excellent to use and integrate with XenServer as well."
"Tintri VMstore is rock solid. We have not had a single issue with stability. It is also very low maintenance allowing us to concentrate on project work."
"It’s very good at IOPS."
"I like Tintri's Global Admin feature and the solution's performance. It's incredibly fast storage, which was a significant upgrade for us when we deployed it seven years ago. The Tintri snapshots are brilliant and incredibly reliable."
"The data encryption feature adds a valuable security enhancement with no impact on performance."
"You can control resources on a per VM basis to ensure that contention in resources does not hamper performance."
"I've worked on both EMC and NetApp SANs, and this is by far the easiest system to maintain"
"The management dashboards keep improving and allow for quick and easy tracing of issues."
"Storage. There could be better storage."
"I would like a feature to integrate with external or cloud solutions. For example, if I want to use this storage for a backup from the cloud, I want to have integration with the cloud vendors, such as Microsoft, Oracles, or Amazon. It could be available as an API to allow seamless integration. Additionally, the solution could improve by having native integration with a cloud provider, such as VMware or Microsoft, this would reduce the need to use third-party solutions to complete the task."
"The backend of this solution utilizes an Active/Passive architecture, rather than an Active/Active architecture, which is a disadvantage, when compared to some of its competitors. Its storage capacity should be expanded in the next release."
"From a scalability perspective, it is a very small storage solution, so it's not very expandable."
"I would like to have support available in Spanish."
"Its price needs improvement. Its price is almost double than any other flash storage solution."
"I would like to see more cloud integration."
"The price should be lower."
"One of the areas that the product can improve is definitely in the user interface. We don't use it for SAN, but we've looked at using it for SAN and the SAN workflows are really problematic for my admins, and they just don't like doing SAN provisioning on that app. That really needs to change if we're going to adopt it and actually consider it to be a strong competitor versus some of the other options out there."
"On the fiber channel side, there is a limit of sixteen terabytes on each line, and we would like to see this raised because we are having to use some other products."
"They should make these features a little more affordable."
"The monitor and performance need improvement. Right now we are using the active IQ OnCommand Unified Manager, but we also have to do the Grafana to do the performance and I hope we will be able to see the improvement of the active IQ in terms of the performance graph. It should also be more detailed."
"I want an interface through ONTAP that look more like what it does for the E-Series with Santricity."
"Technical support is a little lackluster. Some of the issues that we've had were opening up tickets. They seem to be routed in the wrong direction or it takes one or two days to get a call back for simple tasks."
"It would be helpful if the compatibility matrix was a bit better."
"One of the features that I am looking for, which is already in the works, is to be able to take my code and automatically move it to the cloud."
"I'm waiting to see the Kubernetes package. I know they're releasing one, but I haven't seen it yet."
"Technical support is an area where we had several issues, and it was hard to get some support in a specific case we had. I'm not very satisfied with them."
"The solution is already good but the brand name is not so popular here."
"Their current replication is really just enough to "check the box" that they do replication. We'll probably implement Actifio, Zerto or EMC RecoverPoint for VMs for more critical data replication."
"Tintri's Cloud Connector currently only goes to AWS and IBM Cloud, and we don't use either because we're Microsoft Silver Partners. It would be great to get the Cloud Connector feature with Azure. If it's not already on Tintri's roadmap, that's something I'd like to see."
"Active/active cluster between two Tintris on Hyper-V cluster."
"Detailed reporting is missing in the current version. We would like to see this feature added in a new release."
"In sync and automated mirror between two Tintris is missing."
NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews while Tintri VMstore is ranked 15th in All-Flash Storage with 61 reviews. NetApp AFF is rated 9.0, while Tintri VMstore is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tintri VMstore writes "We were able to push a button—it really is that simple—and flip primary and secondary storage locations". NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and NetApp FAS Series, whereas Tintri VMstore is most compared with Dell PowerStore, HPE Nimble Storage, VMware vSAN, DDN IntelliFlash and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI). See our NetApp AFF vs. Tintri VMstore 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.
