We performed a comparison between Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System and Pure Storage FlashArray based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Pure Storage and others in All-Flash Storage."Offers excellent features like efficient data reduction, a reliable SafeMode, and a great support model for continuous assistance and updates."
"It has benefited my organization because it has reduced time to insights."
"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."
"The latency is good."
"Overall stability is very good. It is a very stable solution."
"The duplication algorithm allows us to get a lot more use out of less storage. We're running a five terabyte array right now and we're running probably about 30 terabytes on it. So the duplication rate is pretty phenomenal, without a cost to performance. It still runs pretty smoothly."
"The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature."
"It's actually shaking hands with the workflow solutions much better than any other storage."
"Pure Storage FlashArray's overall speed is its most valuable feature."
"FlashArray has many valuable features. It's very user-friendly and it has high availability, so there is comparatively less downtime. During maintenance, there is no shutdown procedure, so you can directly power off the Array and manage the shutdown process without any data loss, which is a unique feature. Managing replication and data migration is also very easy."
"The tool has reduced our power consumption."
"The initial setup was straightforward in the way that it was a database vacuum storage."
"It worked flawlessly."
"It helps us maintain uptime much better than other solutions we've used in the past, and the support is extremely quick and responsive."
"We find the ease of usability and setup valuable."
"The availability and ease of use are the big features."
"You cannot tag a LUN with a description, and that should be improved. What I like on the Unity side is that when I expand LUNs or do things, there is an information field on the LUN. This is the Information field that you can tag on your LUNs to let yourself know, "Hey, I've added this much space on this date". Pure lacks that ability. So, you don't have a mechanism that's friendly for tracking your data expansions on the LUN and for adding any additional information. That's a downside for me."
"Every time I think of something that needs to improve, they're one step ahead, which I love. The only area I wish to see improve, I believe is coming, is in the FlashBlade product. Blade implementation fell short on a few of the services."
"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."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"The UI for this solution needs to be improved."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"I want to see Pure Storage not only be for fast storage, but I want to see it be for the entire data center."
"It is on the expensive side."
"It has to be flexible according to the customer's requirements. It has to be aligned with the customer business and the business environment."
"I would rate this solution an eight. There's always room for improvement, nobody is perfect to get a ten out of ten. They do what they do well. It's not cheap but we it's for uses that we needed."
"I would like to have support available in Spanish."
"The price should be lower."
"We haven't seen ROI yet."
"One thing I'd like to see in a future release is integration between their main storage array and what they call their FlashBlade product; to be able to snapshot directly from the primary array into multiple different backup copies on FlashBlade."
"It would be nice if Pure had something in its portfolio that provided higher deduplication and compression for backups."
"Larger capacity and more storage ports would be the two things I'd like to see."
"The price of Pure Storage FlashArray could be better."
Earn 20 points
Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is ranked 35th in All-Flash Storage while Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 3rd in All-Flash Storage with 174 reviews. Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is rated 8.0, while Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System writes "Has a fantastic feature-set and works well with workflow solutions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "Effective provisioning, helpful support, and reliable". Oracle FS1 Flash Storage System is most compared with Dell Unity XT, whereas Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, HPE Nimble Storage, IBM FlashSystem and VMware vSAN.
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.