We performed a comparison between HPE StoreEasy and NetApp FAS Series 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 solution's most valuable feature is the duplication."
"I like the tool's provisioning feature and OneView."
"I can use both the on-premises and cloud storage options. I need to have an APR extension from StoreEasy, and it's that simple."
"The most valuable feature of HPE StoreEasy is the storing of virtual machines."
"I like the user quotas, integrations, and separations for storage."
"This solution allows me to better and more easily manage user data without impacting my primary storage."
"Better performance and lower costs."
"The strong point is that our clients like this are RadLV (Radiology Low-Value). They also use SnapMirror and MetroCluster."
"The most valuable features are compression and dedupe."
"It's a stable product. No issues there."
"It is a scalable solution."
"You can use different protocols at the same time. Monitoring is also very easy in NetApp FAS Series. There is a free tool for monitoring."
"A reliable and easily managed storage system is a key performance factor. The system also has more features than we require."
"Compression of the backup Oracle by RMAN on NFS saves space 5:1."
"The support of HPE StoreEasy can improve its responsiveness. Dell support is better."
"When I configure the StoreEasy in a complex environment I have problems finding compatibility with all the software."
"I would like to improve the tool's technical support. I would also like to see the product's hybrid cloud version."
"We need some monitoring tools and it would be helpful if they were included."
"It would be better if it were more scalable. In the next release, I would like to access some Microsoft Windows storage server features. I guess the newest version of Windows Server has some restrictions."
"The cluster service is not available in the latest version of HPE StoreEasy."
"We're supposed to have used NetApp FAS Series for replication, but then one of the nodes failed, and then it's taken us some time to bring it up."
"Installation of the additional switches and ETP could be improved."
"We would like to have further integration with some backup products. They have some of them already, but there could be more."
"NetApp FAS Series could improve by being more secure."
"It lacks automatic tiering, When you use data, some of it goes cold. It is not hot data, so the system should automatically move that data to the SATA, while the hot data is kept on tier-one, the SaaS or SSD drives."
"They should add new features to the product."
"Interfacing with the cloud environment could be better. I want to be able to move some cloud volume and integrate it seamlessly with my home on-premise storage. Sometimes I have issues with port permissions. NetApp probably needs to improve more on the integration side from on-premise to the cloud."
"There is no NetApp infrastructure set up here in Greece."
HPE StoreEasy is ranked 8th in NAS with 7 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 2nd in NAS with 98 reviews. HPE StoreEasy is rated 8.2, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of HPE StoreEasy writes "Good backup solution for applications that is also scalable and stable ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers good performance and ". HPE StoreEasy is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), Qumulo, FreeNAS, IBM Scale-out NAS and HPE 3PAR StoreServ, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), NetApp AFF, HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and HPE StoreOnce. See our HPE StoreEasy vs. NetApp FAS Series 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.