Compare FlexPod vs. Oracle SuperCluster

FlexPod is ranked 1st in Converged Infrastructure with 119 reviews while Oracle SuperCluster is ranked 9th in Converged Infrastructure with 4 reviews. FlexPod is rated 8.6, while Oracle SuperCluster is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of FlexPod writes "The agility reduces the number of hours that it takes to construct a physical or virtual data center". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle SuperCluster writes "Highly integrated system but has limitations connecting with other vendors' products". FlexPod is most compared with Cisco HyperFlex HX-Series, VxRail and Nutanix, whereas Oracle SuperCluster is most compared with Oracle Exalogic, Oracle Private Cloud Appliance and Vblock. See our FlexPod vs. Oracle SuperCluster report.
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
FlexPod Logo
Read 119 FlexPod reviews.
10,751 views|4,223 comparisons
Oracle SuperCluster Logo
1,155 views|623 comparisons
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about FlexPod vs. Oracle SuperCluster and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
378,124 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:

NetApp is always coming up with features that I want before I know that I want them.The most valuable features of this solution are efficiency and simplicity.The most valuable feature of this solution is the stability.The most valuable feature of this solution is the automation point because it's a lot less staff to have to manage it.The most valuable features of this solution are the integration and ease of use.The guides that we use to install FlexPods are always up-to-date. This is really helpful, especially if there is a new product with NetApp moving so far forward and Cisco as well. For them to join together and update a centralized document for the install process, it is really good. It helps us understand if there are features from the first version that we installed while upgrading that we need to implement. Those are in the document. So, we find that document useful and helpful when moving forward.The solution’s unified support for the entire stack is critically important because we cannot afford downtime.We have significantly less latency now with our imagery.

Read more »

The performance is significantly improved, and the administration is easy because it is a single platform end-to-end.A valuable feature is the Exadata Storage appliance, optimized for database queries.Because it's classified as an engineered system, it's all integrated, it's all supported by one vendor. We don't have to go to multiple vendors for support, it's all integrated under Oracle.

Read more »

The only support call that we have had in six years was related to an ONTAP upgrade, where one of the controllers didn't patch properly.We have had some problems with SnapSuite and the replication functionality.I would like to see a more centralized support model.We would like to see the automation improved because there has been a learning curve having to create the workflows.This is an expensive solution.It would be nice to have something like an automated, upgrade solution The tasks needed to upgrade the hardware within FlexPod are still quite behind compared to some of its other aspects. That's more on the Cisco side.The majority of the time, if we need more storage, then we need to work with customizing the NetApp deployment. Right now, we just do a generic deployment, then wherever we have a need for storage, we have to move some application out of the next FlexPod deployment. One thing is to customize based on the requirements, but the requirements change so frequently, they are absolutely obsolete in six months.The solution has not reduced our data center costs.

Read more »

If they had an application that centralized the administration, not about the monitoring, but for the configuration, it would be better.I would like to see control domain and zone management via a management console, similar to that of OVM.There are many areas for improvement. For example, better guidance in terms of troubleshooting issues relating to ZFS, as well as better tools/diagnostics for monitoring that specific component, to better identify potential issues. Hardware monitoring via OEM 13.2 is not 100 percent, as Ops Center is still required in some instances.If it had capabilities to integrate really well with DB2 or SQL Server or Hitachi SANs, those sort of things, that would be a real benefit. Right now, it's fully supported only under all Oracle infrastructure.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
The total cost of ownership with this solution is good.The footprint in the data center is quite large, especially when you scale out. Maybe find some hardware in the future, where if a new blade comes out, then Cisco can say, "Look, we'll buy those blades back off you, and we'll give you this blade for X amount of money." A buyback scheme would be good for hardware, and even NetApp as well. Something like a buyback scheme for blades and stuff moving forward would be good, because I know that they're going to put more power into them. E.g., replacing four blades might equal one blade, which would be awesome, but we are still going to have those four blades around. Maybe having something where it will give you this much money for these blades so we can upgrade. That would be perfect.Our licensing costs are about $50,000 per year.The main return on investment would be that instead of having to refresh all of our desktop hardware we have been able to go reimage existing machines and use those as thin clients, then also purchase new thin clients rather than buying actual hardware. It also reduces the overhead of having our technicians deploy those systems and maintain them.The solution has saved our customers' organization in terms of CapEx. E.g., with the cloud availability, it's turned into sort of a hybrid CapEx/OpEx model.It is not cheap, but there is a return on investment in time saved and efficiency.We have a lease for approximately $10,000 USD per month.The annual cost is approximately $100,000 USD.

Read more »

Information Not Available
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Converged Infrastructure solutions are best for your needs.
378,124 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Average Words per Review
Avg. Rating
Average Words per Review
Avg. Rating
Top Comparisons
Compared 24% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 16% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Also Known As
Oracle MiniCluster, S7-2, M7, M6-32

The FlexPod platform, developed by NetApp and Cisco, is a flexible, converged infrastructure solution that delivers prevalidated storage, networking, and server technologies. It’s designed to increase IT responsiveness to business demands while reducing your overall cost of computing. Think maximum uptime, minimal risk

Secure cloud infrastructure with the industry’s most advanced security, extreme performance, and a complete suite of efficiency enhancements, tools, and automation that work together to dramatically lower cost and complexity.

Learn more about FlexPod
Learn more about Oracle SuperCluster
Sample Customers
University of Sao Paulo, WD-40, The Commonwell Mutual Insurance GroupAdvania, Dimension Data, Atos, Etisilat Nigeria, HDFC, Specialized Bicycle Components, Uganda Revenue Authority, iQor, United Energy, Portic Barcelona, B Logistics, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, CSC, CNSI, REDISA
Top Industries
Financial Services Firm16%
Comms Service Provider10%
Healthcare Company9%
Energy/Utilities Company9%
Software R&D Company19%
Comms Service Provider17%
Financial Services Firm12%
Healthcare Company6%
No Data Available
Company Size
Small Business11%
Midsize Enterprise22%
Large Enterprise68%
Small Business14%
Midsize Enterprise35%
Large Enterprise51%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about FlexPod vs. Oracle SuperCluster and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
378,124 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all Converged Infrastructure 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.
Sign Up with Email