We performed a comparison between Fungible Storage Cluster and Pure Storage FlashBlade based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Pure Storage and others in All-Flash Storage."It is fast and reliable. It works."
"The solution is easy to scale. I'm running two environments right now, so I need to scale. I'm running a part technology. I've got an A-side and a B-side."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. You simply plug it in and turn it on."
"The most valuable feature of the Pure Storage Flash Array is the blazing fast monitoring."
"The stability is perfect. The reliability is 100% and the latency is always lower than 1 millisecond."
"They are quite responsive and our local team was pretty good."
"The most valuable feature is its data reduction."
"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."
"The most valuable features are that it is easy to implement and configure, easy to use, and really reliable."
"The main feature I have found to be product replication."
"We have integrated it with VMware. The integration process is pretty good. Especially with VMware, it helps with the capacity of it."
"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 product is scalable and easy to expand."
"Speed and ease of use are the two most valuable features."
"The solution provides many controllers."
"The initial setup was straightforward. If you know how to plug in power and network you're pretty much qualified. They were on site to configure the network, the box to fit into our network architecture. Other than that, we self-managed from there."
"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."
"It's not so scalable. It's got moderate scaling capabilities right now. The clustering technology needs a bit of work, they need to improve that."
"We would like to be able to connect to data tape for backup, specifically to the LTO backups."
"Going forward, don't complicate things for the customers."
"Most of our upgrades have not been as smooth as they should have been."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve in the area of cryptographic information in the consoles. The user-friendliness could improve. The Pure Storage FlashArray team should come and log into the system with their maintenance credentials and then pull out the information as evidence of cryptography."
"It took us a year to get it to stabilize and to get the best out of Pure."
"I feel like there is too much automation; the user doesn't have any manual input."
"The only time that we had problems with it was that there was a bug in the VVol implementation but, outside of that, it has been flawless."
"The security and reporting could be improved."
"We haven't been able to use much of the cloud area of Pure Storage. We have a storage server and it would be better if it could integrate with other cloud features of this solution."
"The speed could be improved."
"They need better integration with public clouds along with a better hybrid solution."
"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."
"It would be beneficial if the layer could support the S3 protocol and be container ready in the next release."
"It's on the expensive side, as expected for a niche product."
"The technical support needs to improve. When we open a case, it is auto assigned to a support tech person. Nine out of ten times, we get an email right back saying that person is off until tomorrow. I cannot handle that. They just did this over the weekend to us, too. I had to call our rep and have them do something about it."
"There is some room for new features related to authentication and integration with Kubernetes, and other solution using S3 Bucket."
Earn 20 points
Fungible Storage Cluster is ranked 33rd in All-Flash Storage while Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 16th in All-Flash Storage with 31 reviews. Fungible Storage Cluster is rated 7.0, while Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Fungible Storage Cluster writes "Easy to implement and configure but the security and reporting could be improved". 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". Fungible Storage Cluster is most compared with , whereas Pure Storage FlashBlade is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), VAST Data, MinIO, Red Hat Ceph Storage and Dell ECS.
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.