We performed a comparison between NetApp AFF and Pure Storage FlashBlade 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."Cost, racial per terabyte, and speed is why we chose PureStorage. It was no brainer."
"The speed is the most valuable feature, along with the ease of getting it connected. We were able to get it online in less than a day."
"Performance, dedupe, and that it works well with database workloads are its most valuable features."
"The management features are well organized and they have a very good dashboard."
"This solution has improved our organization. In the past, we had reports that were taking up to two hours and after switching to SSD storage the overall processing power dropped to half an hour. The end users saw an immediate performance gain."
"All updates, upgrades, and hardware work are all performed on-line with no impact."
"The all-flash disc is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"We have seen savings in our storage. The speed of deployment has gone from several days to a few minutes. This product has reduced that time into minutes, simplifying storage for us."
"It has a good interface. Its configuration and flexibility are also good."
"We found AFF systems very competitive in terms of performance, storage efficiency, feature richness, and scalability."
"Efficient and easily scalable all-flash storage solution, significantly reducing latency, optimizing data management, and providing cost savings for businesses"
"The file-based protocol supports NFS and CIFS."
"The technical support is fantastic. No one else is like their team. We're happy with them."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to do QoS."
"The most valuable feature is the support. If we have any issues, we can call into NetApp and their support is really good."
"We have had issues before on our infrastructure where 20 to 30 percent of the people would come to us pointing the finger at the storage technology or storage back-end. That is now virtually zero."
"It's very easy-to-use."
"The most valuable features are the Metro clustering, and disaster recovery."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade is user-friendly. It's replication feature is great because it has active replication and active DR. That's the beauty of the product. It's a perfect solution for block storage."
"The onboarding and integrated monitoring tools are pretty good."
"The tool's most valuable features are data warehousing, speedy recovery, and analytics. Its latest release is cost-effective."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."
"It helps simplify our storage, because the user interface is very simple and the installation is easy."
"In terms of the future, I have been excited by some of the copy data management stuff that they're talking about building into the environment. There are feature sets where I've done a lot of automation work. So, I am always looking forward to extensions of their API. They're also talking about a phone home centralized analytics database being used as a centralized management console with a list of new cloud features, but this doesn't seem finalized."
"Areas for improvement would be the financial operations. In the next release, I would like to see a NAS protocol included."
"I would like to see a Nagios monitoring plugin which watches the health and performance of the system. The only one available just checks volume capacity."
"The higher education moves slowly. We are still looking forward to implementing the full list of existing features."
"I would rate this solution an eight because we have had outages. The commit times went very high in the database. The whole array went down so our customers were down for around eight hours. This was a very big outage which could have been our fault because we didn't do the upgrade in time."
"It's not so scalable. It's got moderate scaling capabilities right now. The clustering technology needs a bit of work, they need to improve that."
"The way Pure Storage does the controller storage warranty or replacement has been an issue for some people who just replace the controllers every couple of years, and that's where some of the confusion with pricing and support has come in. They should be clear on the way the controller replacements happen, as it is important to know whether or not you can get a good return on them, because it can be a little confusing."
"In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption."
"NetApp could focus even more on the configuration."
"The user interface should be more user-friendly, and the configuration could be more accessible."
"FC and ATTO bridges are still needed for cross datacenter replication."
"I really don't have anything to ask for in this regard, because we're not really pushing the envelope on any of our use cases. NetApp is really staying out ahead of all of our needs. I believe that there were firmware issues. I think it was just a mismatch of things that were going on. It could have possibly been something in the deployment process that wasn't done exactly right."
"I don't like the newest GUI. It needs more options. Some features have been removed. Oversight is not as good in the new GUI compared to the previous version. Though, it might be something that we just need to get used to."
"A graphical user interface displaying efficiency metrics, such as compression and deduplication rates, would be a great addition."
"The product should be more competitive and come up with additional features. They should keep the client always in mind and as the top priority. This would be the best way to compete with other solutions."
"We were migrating from Data ONTAP 7-Mode to its Cluster-Mode. Therefore, we had to get swing gear, then do the migration from loner gear and back onto our new gear. This was a bit difficult. It took us several months to do multiple migrations."
"I would like to see more VM-Aware features in the next release of this solution."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade should improve on more cloud integration."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."
"The features provided for SMB customers are limited."
"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."
"I would like to have Snapshots and Snapmail in the next release. People who came from a NetApp background, especially expect these features."
"File storage needs a lot of improvement. Mainframe connectivity also needs improvement because it requires additional components to be integrated with Pure Storage FlashBlade. If you want to keep your backup data, then this becomes an even more expensive solution because Pure Storage FlashBlade will not be able to meet your backup needs."
NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews while Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 16th in All-Flash Storage with 31 reviews. NetApp AFF is rated 9.0, while Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8. 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 Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "A high-performing and scalable solution that improves data performance for S3 workloads". NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and NetApp FAS Series, whereas Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO, Red Hat Ceph Storage and Super Micro SuperBlade. See our NetApp AFF vs. Pure Storage FlashBlade 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.