We performed a comparison between NetApp AFF and VAST Data based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is scalable."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"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."
"NetApp tech support is so good. Their tech support has always been so stable and the people are so good in case of any failure or any good feature that needs to be updated or features that supposedly can help with performance to improve some performance. NetApp support is one of the best that I deal with."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the deduplication and the ability to move data to different clouds."
"It's pretty scalable. It can scale up to 24 nodes."
"Over the past 18 years, it has been extremely easy to upgrade to newer products and technology. We can upgrade as we move along. So, we have been able to keep up with the newest technology with zero downtime."
"The ability to do SnapMirror or SnapVault for data resiliency and backup."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is data protection and snapshot technology for backup."
"The tool's most valuable feature is efficiency."
"The performance. The flash performance helps move data pretty fast."
"The solution is useful for machine learning and scientific applications, including computer simulations."
"This has been one of the most reliable storage systems that I have ever used."
"We need better data deduplication."
"We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency."
"There is room for improvement in catering to midrange storage needs, especially for customers seeking Enterprise-class features."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"In the future, I would like to see integration with enterprise backup systems."
"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."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified."
"I'd like to see the product implement active replication for vehicles such as VMware."
"We would like to have more behavioral reporting."
"We don't have many issues related to the appliance itself. In terms of the OS, we do get some hiccups here and there."
"They should provide easier integration with multiple systems."
"I have experienced slow responses several times, if the ticket has only been opened in portal."
"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."
"Offering the ability to actively write data on a single volume spanning multiple clusters is significant."
"In the past, NetApp designed it so that you have a 70% threshold. You would never fill up past 70% since you need to have that room available. Whereas with Pure, I can fill it up to 110% of what they listed and it's still going at full speed. NetApp can't do that."
"It would be better if they just improved the performance of the system."
"The read/write ratio is an area in the solution with some flaws and needs improvement."
"The write performance could be improved because it is less than half of the read performance."
NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 281 reviews while VAST Data is ranked 8th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 2 reviews. NetApp AFF is rated 9.0, while VAST Data is rated 10.0. 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 VAST Data writes "Stability-wise, a device that has been up and running for years". NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Pure Storage FlashArray and IBM FlashSystem, whereas VAST Data is most compared with Pure Storage FlashBlade, Pure Storage FlashArray, Qumulo, Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and DDN SFA7990X. See our NetApp AFF vs. VAST Data report.
See our list of best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.
