We performed a comparison between NetApp NVMe AFF A800 and SolidFire 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."Non-disruptive upgrades: You can upgrade at anytime without worry."
"The deduplication and compression rates are beyond impressive."
"The predictive performance analytics are good."
"Their REST API is wonderful, well-documented, and easy to use."
"The tool has reduced our power consumption."
"Redundancy and the fault tolerance of the platform are the most impressive."
"We are very happy with the data deduplication and compression ratio that we have on the platform."
"It's easy to use, and the maintenance upgrades to get free controllers work really well."
"The most valuable features are stability and performance."
"We find the product to be very flexible."
"During the use cases of the solution, its reliability and suitability are the best."
"You can easily scale up, and scale-out."
"The storage features are valuable."
"Low latency is the most valuable feature."
"The product can be scaled vertically as well as horizontally."
"Over the eight years, we've been using NetApp with ONTAP, we've never lost a bit of data, and we've only experienced a few minutes of downtime in that entire time."
"The square footage for doing development is at a premium when dealing with government networks. To be able to put a lot of IOPS in a lot of high-speed performing drives in a very small location which requires very little HVAC with very little power, it is very valuable to us."
"It is very easy to scale up SolidFire."
"The simplicity of it."
"Overall performance of the solution."
"Greater IOPS, speed, it's all-flash. So seeing that everything is going to all-flash, all SSDs, SolidFire fits right in there with the emerging trend in IT."
"SolidFire has seamless performance for the nodes and extensions. I also like the tool’s scalability. The product’s performance does not get affected when we scale either up or down. This is not the case with other products."
"Being able to provide quality of service as promised."
"The scalability and being able to implement it quickly."
"The problem is that we can only make a few groups, around five or six groups. I like groups and we need a lot of them. We had to put all the information in only a few groups and cannot make a more detailed separation of them."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve by being more secure."
"The initial setup of the product is complex."
"Self-backup is the only feature lacking in this solution."
"The solution is not cheap."
"The technical support is okay, but could be improved."
"When we were doing some tests, we found that there was an I/O freeze when they were switching the controller."
"Pure Storage support could be a little better."
"The support can take a few days to have a response. However, the response that we do receive is very informative."
"Increasing the RAM, and including physical cords would be beneficial."
"The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach."
"The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"Sometimes, it takes a while to get somebody competent on the other end of the line. They do have engineers in multiple time zones around the world. However, their level-one support is not always the best."
"The cost of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal if they could adjust it so that it's a but less."
"The product’s UI could be better."
"There is room for improvement with a focus on creating a centralized storage system, functioning similar to AWS."
"The upgrade process could be better."
"We had some false positives, power supplies failing, and that's really been about it. We had a couple of glitches during some upgrade processes but nothing that was really concerning to us."
"They could make the mNode more user-friendly. Now you need to configure and add nodes by CLI and it’s not really easy to manage. If they created a web interface to do the management of the mNode, that would be great!."
"The user interface needs to be improved. Much of the client feedback involves comments such as "Oh, it's hard to navigate through.""
"I would like to see integration with the cloud, number one. Being able to spin SolidFire in the cloud."
"We have a large fiber channel infrastructure, and that's one area that we haven't seen implemented in SolidFire, its more iSCSI."
"SolidFire could improve in terms of hardware robustness."
NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is ranked 17th in All-Flash Storage with 10 reviews while SolidFire is ranked 19th in All-Flash Storage with 33 reviews. NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is rated 8.8, while SolidFire is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of NetApp NVMe AFF A800 writes "Very easy to manage, highly stable and offers robustness of the CLI, API, and GUI ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of SolidFire writes "A versatile storage solution suitable for various workloads in cloud environments providing scalable architecture, granular Quality of Service and consistent performance". NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Huawei OceanStor Dorado, NetApp ASA and NetApp AFF, whereas SolidFire is most compared with NetApp AFF, Dell PowerStore and VMware vSAN. See our NetApp NVMe AFF A800 vs. SolidFire 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.