We performed a comparison between NetApp AFF and VAST Data based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"It has benefited my organization because it has reduced time to insights."
"The solution is scalable."
"The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"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."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The most valuable feature is the support. If we have any issues, we can call into NetApp and their support is really good."
"The most valuable feature of NetApp AFF for us is its ability to manage multiple IP spaces for our customers in a shared environment."
"The Snapshots and just the overall flexibility of the product have been great."
"MetroCluster provides business continuity and is a critical part of our contingency setup."
"It is a stable solution."
"The Active IQ feature is a productive mechanism that automatically collects reports and users' statuses."
"Replication would be one of the most valuable features."
"Organizations can reduce data storage footprint and lower power and cooling costs, helping to adopt "Green IT.""
"This has been one of the most reliable storage systems that I have ever used."
"The solution is useful for machine learning and scientific applications, including computer simulations."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"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."
"In terms of what needs improvement, the dashboard and management could be simplified."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"The UI for this solution needs to be improved."
"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."
"In the future, I would like to see integration with enterprise backup systems."
"There is room for improvement in catering to midrange storage needs, especially for customers seeking Enterprise-class features."
"We don't have many issues related to the appliance itself. In terms of the OS, we do get some hiccups here and there."
"One of the areas that the product can improve is definitely in the user interface. We don't use it for SAN, but we've looked at using it for SAN and the SAN workflows are really problematic for my admins, and they just don't like doing SAN provisioning on that app. That really needs to change if we're going to adopt it and actually consider it to be a strong competitor versus some of the other options out there."
"The price of NVMe storage is very expensive."
"When you look at the competitors, they have some features available, for example on the deduplication side."
"It has not reduced our data center costs. NetApp charges a pretty penny for their stuff."
"I would like it to be an IP as our network is mainly IP-based."
"We installed NetSender to test it. I think it could be a good solution. It is very small now, but will probably become bigger in the next few months to years."
"I would like to see better tutorials available, beyond the basics, that cover subjects like MetroCluster and automation."
"The read/write ratio is an area in the solution with some flaws and needs improvement."
"The write performance could be improved because it is less than half of the read performance."
NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 281 reviews while VAST Data is ranked 8th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 2 reviews. NetApp AFF is rated 9.0, while VAST Data is rated 10.0. 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 VAST Data writes "Stability-wise, a device that has been up and running for years". NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Pure Storage FlashArray and IBM FlashSystem, whereas VAST Data is most compared with Pure Storage FlashBlade, Pure Storage FlashArray, Qumulo, Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and DDN SFA7990X. See our NetApp AFF vs. VAST Data report.
See our list of best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.