We performed a comparison between Hitachi NAS Platform and IBM FlashSystem based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The pricing of this solution is good, which is an advantage that positions this product well."
"Simple and extremely reliable."
"Hitachi is reliable with high availability and solid performance. It performs well regardless of the workload."
"The product’s technical support services are good."
"The product has valuable features for data migration."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to handle a high number of users while maintaining both stability and performance."
"Hitachi NAS Platform is very stable."
"The feature I find most valuable, is the deduplication, because the nature of the data that we are using in our current environment, has a lot of replicated data."
"The speed and the ease of installation are the most valuable features."
"Most of the features for the reduction in data compression are useful. It is also very easy to use and administer. Its performance is also good."
"IBM FlashSystem has an easy to use GUI, similar to the IBM Storewize family, which make it one of the best flash storage systems in the market."
"Virtualization of external storage, while adding cache and speed to the external storage."
"The most valuable feature in demand is virtualization and its support storage of virtualization features."
"The initial setup is straightforward and can be done in an hour and a half by one person."
"When it comes to the interface of the solution we did not encounter any challenges. Additionally, the solution has good documentation."
"Hitachi could be more flexible and have a simpler management interface."
"The monitoring tool is not well developed."
"I do not like Hitachi NAS because it's an old-school NAS solution, compared to the other, newer-type solutions such as Isilon from Dell or Qumulo."
"I would like to see the inclusion of support for cloud-connectivity to providers like AWS."
"I encounter challenges while installing the upgrades for the product."
"Hitachi NAS Platform is expensive."
"Hitachi NAS Platform's pricing could be reduced. It is high compared to other competitors."
"The solution is quite expensive. That's one of the downsides to using it."
"Replication features need improvement. Currently, they are there in the product, but I'm not sure as to how it works exactly."
"The security features can be improved such that the encryption does not affect performance in any way."
"The pricing needs to be more competitive."
"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 solution has a low number of NVME host attachments at 16 per IO group over the fiber channel."
"Product support is restricted to IBM only. It must be decentralized to IBM partners as well."
"The storage capacity of this solution could be improved."
Hitachi NAS Platform is ranked 15th in NAS with 8 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews. Hitachi NAS Platform is rated 6.8, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Hitachi NAS Platform writes "Good pricing and works well, but it is old-fashioned and should be replaced with something new". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". Hitachi NAS Platform is most compared with NetApp FAS Series, Dell PowerScale (Isilon), Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and Qumulo, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform. See our Hitachi NAS Platform vs. IBM FlashSystem report.
See our list of best NAS vendors.
We monitor all NAS 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.
