We performed a comparison between NetApp NVMe AFF A800 and Pure Storage FlashArray 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."FlashArray has some fresh efficiency features. I've never seen a storage solution with a compression rating this high before. It's at least 4-to-1 on Oracle databases. It's the best flash storage for Oracle."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature."
"It has good, reliable, fast storage."
"It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"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."
"It is very easy to install and configure. It has got excellent diagnostics. If you really need to see how the box is performing, the console gives you a lot of information. You can set thresholds as well as alerts based on the thresholds, which is a very powerful functionality. They are very proactive. They know how to monitor and manage the systems. They see a problem, and they are all over it before us. They see the problem before we see it, which is very good."
"You can easily scale up, and scale-out."
"We find the product to be very flexible."
"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."
"During the use cases of the solution, its reliability and suitability are the best."
"Low latency is the most valuable feature."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a product that is fast and provides a fast I/O."
"The storage features are valuable."
"The most valuable features are the replication of data and the continuous snapshot that we can take from the disc."
"The product cheaper compared to other solutions concerning the technology that they are using."
"Before we used Pure Storage it took 93 days of employees who run the database to back up and restore databases. The scale of deployment basically went from several days to a few minutes."
"This solution is very scalable."
"Access speed and power consumption are most valuable."
"The speed is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The most valuable feature of Pure Storage FlashArray is the complete set of functions it provides."
"The ease of management is one of the most valuable features of this solution. I would have also said that it's pretty fast but now our SQL servers are starting to beat it up pretty bad."
"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."
"Right now, the box itself is just strictly working as a backend storage system. It would be fantastic if we could access it directly like a NAS device through network access or SIS drives. I think they have an interface, but I am not sure how good it is. If we could address a box directly on the network without having to go through a server, it would be great. The replication schemas could be improved. We are not using replication on the storage level right now. We use a different type of replication. If their replication would be as good as the one that we have, I would probably run the replication schema because it might be faster, but I don't know that for a fact. So, I cannot say that they have good replication. All I can say is that they need to inform us better."
"It is on the expensive side."
"Our use cases require more multi-tenant capabilities and additional VLAN interfaces for separating different customers. We currently use it to provide storage, sometimes shared storage, to different customers, but it is less flexible in comparison to a dedicated solution."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"We need better data deduplication."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"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."
"Stability is an area with a certain shortcoming where the solution needs to improve"
"The product’s UI could be better."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach."
"The cost of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal if they could adjust it so that it's a but less."
"The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better."
"The support can take a few days to have a response. However, the response that we do receive is very informative."
"From a scalability perspective, it is a very small storage solution, so it's not very expandable."
"We haven't seen ROI yet."
"The internal garbage collection process has been fixed recently in some OS updates so it is more efficient but that could be just a little better."
"The file functionality could be better."
"The price should be lower."
"The GUI is simplistic and basic. I feel like it's explanatory, but not enough, it needs a little more to it."
"We would like to integrate it more with our backup solutions."
"I would like to see support for NVMe, end-to-end."
NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is ranked 17th in All-Flash Storage with 10 reviews while Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 3rd in All-Flash Storage with 174 reviews. NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is rated 8.8, while Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of NetApp NVMe AFF A800 writes "Very easy to manage, highly stable and offers robustness of the CLI, API, and GUI ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "Effective provisioning, helpful support, and reliable". NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Huawei OceanStor Dorado, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, NetApp ASA and NetApp AFF, whereas Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, HPE Nimble Storage, IBM FlashSystem and VMware vSAN. See our NetApp NVMe AFF A800 vs. Pure Storage FlashArray 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.