We performed a comparison between Pure FlashArray X NVMe 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."The first year, we started out with one or five terabytes and it took what was 20 terabytes of storage down to less than one terabyte."
"Has also helped simplify storage for us. The other person we put in there, took about a week to implement. And we had both arrays set up within around four hours with a thirty minute drive time between the two locations."
"As soon as we introduced our first Pure Storage FlashArray, the first benefit was at least twice the performance increase. Our production databases simply ran twice as fast with no other change."
"Having an intuitive user interface to get things running is great."
"We've had different types of storage, and three things of this solution are valuable. The first one is its outstanding performance. The second one is its stability. In the about three years that we've had it, we've had component failures, but we never had a service interruption or any data loss. The third one, which is really critical, is that it is super easy to use in terms of provisioning, storage, and managing the arrays. I'm able to maintain a multi-site environment with a couple of dozen arrays with a single mid-level storage admin."
"I use all the features of this solution and I find them to be easy to use and functional, such as the compression and capacity to expand."
"Cost, racial per terabyte, and speed is why we chose PureStorage. It was no brainer."
"We find the ease of usability and setup valuable."
"It is very easy to install and configure. It has got excellent diagnostics. If you really need to see how the box is performing, the console gives you a lot of information. You can set thresholds as well as alerts based on the thresholds, which is a very powerful functionality. They are very proactive. They know how to monitor and manage the systems. They see a problem, and they are all over it before us. They see the problem before we see it, which is very good."
"It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"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."
"It has good, reliable, fast storage."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The latency is good."
"Pure has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator."
"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."
"The most valuable features include the ease of implementation, ease of use and the speed that you can do backup and recovery on."
"The ease of deployment and management has helped us simplify our storage. We also do not have to worry about capacity management as much. A lot of these things are native to Pure Storage."
"The product is scalable and easy to expand."
"The main feature I have found to be product replication."
"The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."
"It has also helped to simplify storage for us in the way that it's easy to manage. Their automatic monitoring really helps when things break or are about to break. They see a problem coming and alert us even before our own system does."
"The solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."
"It is very easy to use, and it is very fast."
"I would like to see the NAS add-on component become more fault-tolerant than just a single virtual machine running inside the array. I'm unwilling to use it for that reason."
"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."
"CIFS and SMB Shares cannot be mounted directly."
"The primary drawback is the cost, which can be prohibitive for small configurations."
"When we were doing some tests, we found that there was an I/O freeze when they were switching the controller."
"It was a little costly. The price was ultimately higher than both of the other solutions that we evaluated. I'd say that's the only downside."
"I would like some performance analytics which go deeper than today. It should be specific to some hosts and applications. This would be good."
"I want to learn more about command line usage which I have not explored much yet. However, there are many automated solutions for repetitive tasks. I would like to see additional features like performance monitoring, configuring of alerts, and the customization of alert thresholds in the next release."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"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."
"The software layer has to improve."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"We need better data deduplication."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"It usually comes down to just what you hit and the value you're getting when you spend the money and license the products. I would always go, "If you want to make things better, lower your price and make your licensing simpler." There's always an opportunity around that."
"I would also like to see better support for CIFS workloads."
"I would like to see more VM-Aware features in the next release of this solution."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"The solution is expensive."
"There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket."
"It's on the expensive side, as expected for a niche product."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
Pure FlashArray X NVMe is ranked 13th in All-Flash Storage with 27 reviews while Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 16th in All-Flash Storage with 30 reviews. Pure FlashArray X NVMe is rated 9.2, while Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Pure FlashArray X NVMe writes "Works well, is easy to implement, and has upgrade analysis capabilities". 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". Pure FlashArray X NVMe is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array, whereas Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO and Red Hat Ceph Storage. See our Pure FlashArray X NVMe 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.