We performed a comparison between Pure Storage FlashArray and Reduxio [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Pure Storage and others in All-Flash Storage."It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature."
"The duplication algorithm allows us to get a lot more use out of less storage. We're running a five terabyte array right now and we're running probably about 30 terabytes on it. So the duplication rate is pretty phenomenal, without a cost to performance. It still runs pretty smoothly."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"It has good, reliable, fast storage."
"Pure has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator."
"The most valuable features of Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its superior performance compared to other flash tiers, as well as its ease of use, with an intuitive user interface that is simple to deploy and use."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"The management features are well organized and they have a very good dashboard."
"Having an intuitive user interface to get things running is great."
"I like FlashArray's ActiveCluster as well as its snapshot and cloning capabilities."
"It simplifies the overall management. We don't have to worry about storage anymore."
"Data deduplication features make it easier to manage storage and forecast growth."
"This solution is very scalable."
"Pure Storage technology allowed us to automate tasks, reducing something which started as a 12-hour turnaround down to about 15 minutes."
"We also use VMware integrations developed by Pure, their plugins in our vCenter environment. They help by allowing our non-technical operations teams to deploy new data stores and resize data stores without me having to involve myself all the time to do those simple tasks."
"We are getting 4.4:1 data reduction, which means we will be able to squeeze over 120TB into 2U. This is more than enough capacity for us."
"Instant recovery through its continuous data protection."
"I like the Reduxio TimeOS, specifically. That feature's pretty good. I haven't seen it in any other product. They're the only ones who have it."
"We like the way the Reduxio is designed, the way the managing/operating end is just so much easier; fewer steps, more intuitive steps. It has a number of features baked into it that, in other products, are additional licensed components, like compression and dedupe."
"Automated tiering and inline data deduplication."
"I like the performance. I think it's what you call a hybrid SAN. It has solid state drives and, of course, regular optical drives, which would make performance a lot better, faster."
"In the event of a deletion, corruption, or ransomware, I am never going to lose more than one second of changes."
"It's very intuitive, has a very modern interface. Instead of making the user set up a million parameters for things that the system knows better anyway, they put all the intelligence in the product and made the controls much easier."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"You cannot tag a LUN with a description, and that should be improved. What I like on the Unity side is that when I expand LUNs or do things, there is an information field on the LUN. This is the Information field that you can tag on your LUNs to let yourself know, "Hey, I've added this much space on this date". Pure lacks that ability. So, you don't have a mechanism that's friendly for tracking your data expansions on the LUN and for adding any additional information. That's a downside for me."
"There is room for improvement in catering to midrange storage needs, especially for customers seeking Enterprise-class features."
"Right now, the box itself is just strictly working as a backend storage system. It would be fantastic if we could access it directly like a NAS device through network access or SIS drives. I think they have an interface, but I am not sure how good it is. If we could address a box directly on the network without having to go through a server, it would be great. The replication schemas could be improved. We are not using replication on the storage level right now. We use a different type of replication. If their replication would be as good as the one that we have, I would probably run the replication schema because it might be faster, but I don't know that for a fact. So, I cannot say that they have good replication. All I can say is that they need to inform us better."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"We would like to see more visibility into garbage collection and CPU performance in the GUI."
"In the configuration, which we brought in or tested it in, it has a very limited config as far as the array goes. That said, it still did more than our anticipation."
"I would love to see a true one click upgrade solution. Right now, you have to click and schedule an appointment with Pure Storage to be able to upgrade. I would love for it to automatically download, install, and fall-over every controller as it updates."
"I can't see where they can make anything better, unless, of course, they lower their prices even more."
"I’d love to view the average, minimum and maximum performance in the reports (Analysis tab - Performance) but it is only graphics and you need to export data in CSV to find this information."
"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."
"I would like some form of QoS implemented. As a service provider, it would be beneficial to have it."
"It would be nice to have a better view of the allocated capacity on their Platform as a Service solution because we have to do some manual calculations to understand how much we are going to pay every month to use the storage that is allocated."
"The GUI is simplistic and basic. I feel like it's explanatory, but not enough, it needs a little more to it."
"t would be helpful to have a mobile app to monitor the storage array remotely."
"A centralized management would be nice, the ability to manage all cluster in one management portal."
"The only thing that I would point out would be the basic administration management of the machine. Everything has rights, meaning that there's either all control or no delegated control. So to sum that up, it would be a feature request for delegated management in the administrative console."
"the only thing I would say negative about Reduxio is the cabling was a little bit confusing at first, but now that we understand it, it's easy. It was just so different from what we've seen before. That was the only hard part to get used to. The storage array is fully redundant, so there are some cross-connect cables that you have to run, from the A side to the B side, and the B side back to the A side, and we've just never seen anything like that before. But now that I understand the design, it makes complete sense. But initially it was confusing."
"The ability to look at data at a file level would be useful, as well as the ability recover at that level. Right now, you can only recover whole volumes."
"If Reduxio could manage multiple Reduxio systems within the same dashboard, or manage them as a single mode, it be very, very helpful for us."
"The only critique that we have is it needs the ability to have local users added. You have to log in as one built-in admin account. You can't create your own."
"Needs to be made easier to use with slightly older versions of VMware."
Earn 20 points
Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 3rd in All-Flash Storage with 174 reviews while Reduxio [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in All-Flash Storage. Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.2, while Reduxio [EOL] is rated 9.8. The top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "Effective provisioning, helpful support, and reliable". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Reduxio [EOL] writes "Its access speed and now its recently released features makes Reduxio not only an equal, but also better than your older version SANs". Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, HPE Nimble Storage, IBM FlashSystem and VMware vSAN, whereas Reduxio [EOL] is most compared with .
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.
