We performed a comparison between NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays and Pure Storage FlashBlade 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."This solution has helped my organization by cutting down on provisioning time. I used to have to provision a VM and it would take ten minutes. Now, it takes thirty seconds."
"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."
"For us, the most valuable feature is the compression and deduplication. Being able to deploy a three to one ratio for storage is absolutely critical in today's world with the growing need for storage and the growing need for more space."
"Having fast storage allows actual servers to perform in high capacity so we don't have slowdowns on our applications."
"This solution is very scalable."
"It helps to simplify storage because it has an easy front-end to access everything."
"The speed of the Pure FlashArray is very, very fast and nothing in the market can compare to it."
"We like the speed. It's very low latency. In virtualization, you can mask lots of problems, and even in code you can mask lots of problems, with low latency. It's just pure speed and low latency."
"The main advantage of this solution is performance."
"Rapid deployment, easy integration management and cloning of areas."
"One of the most valuable features is the overall performance it provides. You're able to throw a pile of IOPS at it and it will handle that without much issue."
"The management of it is very simple. that is the most valuable feature."
"I like the performance aspect of EF Series. It basically provides everything that we are looking for as a solution, very low latency and very high performance."
"This storage solution is both stable and scalable, and it works for our needs."
"Having the option of such high-speed storage in the data center is what makes it valuable."
"The benefits are better up-time, better response time."
"I would rate this solution an eight plus. It has has good flexibility and stability, it's easy to manage and the response time is good."
"What I like best about Pure Storage FlashBlade is its object storage functionality, plus it has fast underlying hardware. Pure Storage FlashBlade is also very stable. I find its stability one of its valuable features."
"The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensures efficient replication and helps maintain our data centers' uptime."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the rewrite speed and the nonstop services."
"The most valuable features are the Metro clustering, and disaster recovery."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is performance."
"The most valuable features include the ease of implementation, ease of use and the speed that you can do backup and recovery on."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade is user-friendly. It's replication feature is great because it has active replication and active DR. That's the beauty of the product. It's a perfect solution for block storage."
"There was some complexity in the initial setup."
"The time-to-market could be better at times, but I think that's true for all vendors of hardware."
"The solution could improve by having a multi-tenant feature."
"What it needs to do is work a little closer with solutions, like VMware, so it understands the particular workloads that are on it. Today, it does not understand the applications which are running against it."
"The price of the solution can improve."
"Having something native in the Pure Storage ecosystem would make it integrated and in one single company, and we wouldn't have to work with multiple organizations."
"With scalability, I have run into a little problem with our last upgrade. There were some undocumented limitations to the number of drives that our controller could run on. So, instead of putting in a new data pack as we had anticipated, we had to keep adding and removing to get up to the capacity that we needed to be. What should have been a one day process (or a few hours) turned into a month and a half process."
"The initial setup was a little complex. We had some initial issues with the design and had to help correct some of the white papers for it, but it wasn't your standard use case."
"It needs a better management tool."
"NetApp could improve the speed of the rebuilding rate."
"I would like to see higher-capacity drives, as they come out; I have heard that 15 TB are out on a different NetApp series. Getting those on the EFs would be nice."
"As far as the manageability, being able to port between the two and have to do less training in-house from a customer point of view, that would be the part to improve."
"This solution does not have any compression or deduplication."
"A little more manageability, a simpler management interface. It's not necessarily that it's way overly complex. It's just that it's not as easy as the FAS series."
"I would like to shrink it more, if we can. The smaller, the better."
"Better support technicians for CAPP."
"The features provided for SMB customers are limited."
"There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket."
"The solution is expensive."
"The Pure Storage Orchestrator is our biggest pain point at the moment. If we can have more say in future developments of feature sets that we will need to support for our use case, that would be pretty beneficial to us."
"In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
"I would like to see better integration."
"There could be improvements in public cloud integration."
More NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays Pricing and Cost Advice →
NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is ranked 23rd in All-Flash Storage with 38 reviews while Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 16th in All-Flash Storage with 31 reviews. NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is rated 8.6, while Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays writes "A storage solution that offers great stability, resilience, and support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashBlade writes "A high-performing and scalable solution that improves data performance for S3 workloads". NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays is most compared with NetApp AFF, Dell PowerStore, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Huawei OceanStor Dorado and HPE Primera, whereas Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO, Red Hat Ceph Storage and Dell ECS. See our NetApp EF-Series All Flash Arrays vs. Pure Storage FlashBlade 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.
