We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp NVMe AFF A800 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."Offers excellent features like efficient data reduction, a reliable SafeMode, and a great support model for continuous assistance and updates."
"The latency is good."
"One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"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."
"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 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."
"It's helped us because we've changed fundamentally what we talk about. We don't talk about storage and different tiers of storage anymore nor do we talk about servers. We talk now about applications and how applications impact the business and end users."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"Over the years, it has become increasingly user-friendly."
"IBM FlashSystem is flexible, quick, and has a solid design."
"Installing FlashSystem is very easy. It takes less than half an hour, and I can handle it all myself."
"The most valuable features are, of course, the virtualization of the storage, the performance, and the compression."
"When it comes to the interface of the solution we did not encounter any challenges. Additionally, the solution has good documentation."
"I like most of the features. Its speed, performance, and availability are valuable. We are implementing the data reduction technology the most."
"The installation is nice and easy."
"The most valuable feature is reliability."
"The product can be scaled vertically as well as horizontally."
"The storage features are valuable."
"NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is easier to use than some other solutions and the UI is very good to use for day-to-day activities. Overall, the solution has good technology."
"Low latency is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features are stability and performance."
"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."
"You can easily scale up, and scale-out."
"We find the product to be very flexible."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency."
"We would like to see VNC integration or be able to use Pure Storage with VNC."
"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."
"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."
"The UI for this solution needs to be improved."
"The software layer has to improve."
"The interface could improve in IBM FlashSystem."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The data reduction pool feature sucks and is not recommended for use with heavy workloads."
"The GUI for monitoring performance metrics could provide better visibility. For example, it doesn't let me segregate the IOPS per volume."
"Our model does not support compression or deduplication."
"The customer's expectations are what they get on the cloud, they're expecting even in the on-premises deployments, going forward."
"A big area for improvement is that the data reduction pool feature is not recommended for use in a production environment because it has stability and performance issues."
"The product needs to improve their scalability."
"The support can take a few days to have a response. However, the response that we do receive is very informative."
"The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better."
"Stability is an area with a certain shortcoming where the solution needs to improve"
"The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach."
"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 product’s UI could be better."
"Increasing the RAM, and including physical cords would be beneficial."
"The initial setup is complex."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 6th in All-Flash Storage with 106 reviews while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is ranked 17th in All-Flash Storage with 10 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is rated 8.8. 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 NVMe AFF A800 writes "Very easy to manage, highly stable and offers robustness of the CLI, API, and GUI ". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, whereas NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Huawei OceanStor Dorado, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, NetApp ASA and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp NVMe AFF A800 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.
