We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp AFF 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."The Pure1 component is most valuable at this point in time when comparing it with EMC. Pure1 is where you can have your diagnostics in the cloud, so you can look at things from your mobile phone."
"We're able to get higher-density workloads on the same infrastructure, and we have a smaller physical footprint. The performance is excellent – during our test the bottlenecks are never on the X array, it just keeps picking up the pace to match what you need. The real-time visibility is a differentiator in my opinion."
"The standout features for us in Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its robust DDoS protection, seamless transparent failover, and failback capabilities ensuring high availability."
"What I really like about this program, is that it is easy to use and easy to configurate."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps to improve our processing speed. It is user-friendly and easy to use."
"Speed (IOPS/second) – It is most vital for applications that need low latency and high speed for transferring the data."
"The speed of the unit is its best feature. It performs very well."
"The most valuable features are, of course, the virtualization of the storage, the performance, and the compression."
"We are a 100% satisfied with the stability of the solution."
"It's a mature product. It's like a BMW that evolves consistently."
"IBM FlashSystem is flexible, quick, and has a solid design."
"This solution is convenient, user-friendly, convenient and reliable."
"Virtualization of external storage, while adding cache and speed to the external storage."
"The valuable features are the fabric pool. We are taking our cold data and pumping it straight into an estuary bucket. Also, efficiency. We're getting about two and a half times upwards of data efficiency through compaction, compression, deduplication, and it's size. When we refreshed from two or three racks of spinning discs down into 5U of rack space, it not only saved us a whole heap of costs in our data center environment but also it's nice to be green. The power savings alone equated to be about 50 tons of CO2 a year that we no longer emit. It's a big game changer."
"Multi-protocol is the most valuable feature for us. It does everything in one system: sifts, EBES, ISCSI, and fiber channel. Other systems don't do all that."
"Its top-tier performance ranks as the most valuable aspect."
"We have never had a failure. We can upgrade as we move along with zero downtime."
"Deduplication"
"We use the NFS and SIP protocols a lot. The NFS is the most valuable feature."
"The ability to do SnapMirror or SnapVault for data resiliency and backup."
"I think that the DR applications are the most valuable, including Snapshots and SnapMirror."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"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."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"It is on the expensive side."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified."
"The software layer has to improve."
"The data reduction pool feature sucks and is not recommended for use with heavy workloads."
"The solution's infrastructure technology level could be PCI Express 5 instead of PCI Express 4 for the next version."
"The ease of installation should be improved. We had issues with the configuration model."
"The solution has a low number of NVME host attachments at 16 per IO group over the fiber channel."
"Enterprise data storage needs improvement. They should create a feature for data and file storage."
"This solution could be improved by offering greater amounts of storage."
"With regards to the IBM V7000 storage system, where we have multiple tiers of storage, a heat map would show I/O distribution across the tiers of storage."
"Replication features need improvement. Currently, they are there in the product, but I'm not sure as to how it works exactly."
"I would like to see an improvement in the high availability of the NFS and CIFS sharing during upgrade and patching; this would help to avoid downtime."
"The dashboard needs improvement. The dashboard needs some uplift"
"Tech support is a place where there is room to improve the product experience. The response time when they are busy is not very good."
"I would like to see a little more flexibility in customizing some of the SnapMirror stuff. We have been having a little trouble and, in the first round with tech support, they say, "Well, this is how we do it." It's not exactly throttled but it's limited in the number of connections it makes. We would like to be able to tweak that, to increase it a little bit, because we don't have half a dozen large areas that we are protecting, we have more like 40 or 50 areas. They run into each other a little bit and I don't want to spend time on them."
"In terms of improvement, IO performance could use some enhancement."
"There are some bugs with the solution which need to be fixed."
"A lot of the tools that are built into the stock, ONTAP operating system, instead of having to buy the add-ons and things."
"I would like to see NetApp improve more of its offline tools and utilities."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 6th in All-Flash Storage with 106 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 281 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell Unity XT and Huawei OceanStor Dorado, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Pure Storage FlashArray and Lenovo ThinkSystem DE Series. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp AFF 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.
