We performed a comparison between DDN IntelliFlash and Tintri VMstore based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Tintri VMstore came out ahead of DDN IntelliFlash, as our reviewers found DDN IntelliFlash more difficult to deploy, more expensive, and requiring improvement in its support.
"The standout features for us in Pure FlashArray X NVMe are its robust DDoS protection, seamless transparent failover, and failback capabilities ensuring high availability."
"Offers excellent features like efficient data reduction, a reliable SafeMode, and a great support model for continuous assistance and updates."
"Technical support has been helpful and responsive."
"The solution is scalable."
"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 initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"It's very fast. We were seeing read latencies of less than one millisecond. It is robust."
"It provides a combination of all the protocols that you need, without losing deduplication and compression."
"Data Compression: Up to 80% space reduction in the database"
"It has reduced our electricity usage by reducing the amount of disks needed for the virtual environment."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"It performed great originally, and when it performed great, it was awesome."
"High performance and ease-of-management are the most valuable features."
"EasyTier/hotcaching: Valuable because it allows greater performance than standard SAS disks"
"I like Tintri's Global Admin feature and the solution's performance. It's incredibly fast storage, which was a significant upgrade for us when we deployed it seven years ago. The Tintri snapshots are brilliant and incredibly reliable."
"It has easy setup, easy administration, and no LUNs!"
"The management dashboards keep improving and allow for quick and easy tracing of issues."
"You can control resources on a per VM basis to ensure that contention in resources does not hamper performance."
"It’s very good at IOPS."
"We also find the detail per-vm reporting at the ability to see reports from the hypervisor straight back to the storage useful."
"Its speed has been absolutely fantastic."
"The ability to snap machines into VMware quickly is valuable."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"It is on the expensive side."
"The software layer has to improve."
"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."
"We would like to see VNC integration or be able to use Pure Storage with VNC."
"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."
"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 catering to midrange storage needs, especially for customers seeking Enterprise-class features."
"Technical support is bad. It'd grade them at 30% or 40%. The response time is terrible."
"Performance is horrible now. Our original intent was to buy new storage in about two years. But since it became a critical urgency for us, we decided to purchase a new one in two or three months."
"Snapshots are not as easy to access as on a NetApp device."
"It only keeps one hour of real-time data without the ability to do deep analysis of each element."
"We had just one small stability problem with power flapping and it did not start up again automatically. We had to access service ports and manually restart the storage processors."
"In the proxy section you can’t choose a user account and password, so it is not allowed at the moment to go out, if customer has such constellation."
"It's somewhat scalable, but maybe not so much as some of the competition."
"They need to offer better integration for a virtual platform to enable you to create hyper-converged solution."
"More cloud integration."
"I think with the world soon becoming only SSD, possibly NVMe, and 3D Xpoint. It would make sense for Tintri to drop the hybrid array down the line."
"The Tintri Analytics site is excellent for long-term trending, but more data would be great."
"I would love more insight into each virtual machine statistic."
"Tintri's Cloud Connector currently only goes to AWS and IBM Cloud, and we don't use either because we're Microsoft Silver Partners. It would be great to get the Cloud Connector feature with Azure. If it's not already on Tintri's roadmap, that's something I'd like to see."
"We need more options to integrate with cloud storage options other than the current AWS and IBM that it currently supports."
"Technical support is an area where we had several issues, and it was hard to get some support in a specific case we had. I'm not very satisfied with them."
"I'm waiting to see the Kubernetes package. I know they're releasing one, but I haven't seen it yet."
Earn 20 points
DDN IntelliFlash is ranked 29th in All-Flash Storage with 11 reviews while Tintri VMstore T7000 is ranked 14th in All-Flash Storage with 61 reviews. DDN IntelliFlash is rated 7.4, while Tintri VMstore T7000 is rated 9.4. The top reviewer of DDN IntelliFlash writes "Good features with an easy initial setup but technical support is slow ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Tintri VMstore T7000 writes "We were able to push a button—it really is that simple—and flip primary and secondary storage locations". DDN IntelliFlash is most compared with Pure Storage FlashArray, VAST Data and NetApp AFF, whereas Tintri VMstore T7000 is most compared with Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell PowerStore, HPE Nimble Storage, VMware vSAN and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI).
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.