Compare HGST ActiveScale vs. NetApp StorageGRID
HGST ActiveScale is ranked 12th in File and Object Storage while NetApp StorageGRID is ranked 4th in File and Object Storage with 4 reviews. HGST ActiveScale is rated 0, while NetApp StorageGRID is rated 8.2. On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp StorageGRID writes "The implementation went smoothly. It is a 'setup and forget' type of appliance". HGST ActiveScale is most compared with Scality RING8, EMC Elastic Cloud Storage and Red Hat Ceph Storage, whereas NetApp StorageGRID is most compared with EMC Elastic Cloud Storage, Red Hat Ceph Storage and Cloudian HyperStore.
Most Helpful Review | |||
Use HGST ActiveScale? Share your opinion. |
| ||
 Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Pure Storage, SwiftStack and others in File and Object Storage. Updated: March 2020. 405,659 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:
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
Information Not Available | Creating your own data stores, backups, or storage grids, helps eliminate all these costs of downloading all the data back after you downloaded to the cloud. Buying the solution is expensive, but it saves you money down the line when you factor in the logistics of not having to buy tapes. The licensing that the S3 service provides them from a FabricPool standpoint is more attractive than the licensing from AWS or Azure. We save money on storage costs from this solution since it allows us to have a source of revenue from customers consuming the service. While we have been able to save money on storage costs, it could be better. The price is attractive. We chose NetApp because of price and performance. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs. 405,659 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 402 Comparisons 331 Reviews 0 Average Words per Review 0 Avg. Rating N/A | Views 3,078 Comparisons 2,018 Reviews 4 Average Words per Review 677 Avg. Rating 8.3 |
Top Comparisons | |
 Compared 22% of the time.  Compared 17% of the time.  Compared 15% of the time. | Compared 30% of the time. Compared 25% of the time.  Compared 13% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| Active Archive System, ActiveScale P100, ActiveScale X100 | Storage GRID |
Learn | |
| HGST | NetApp |
Overview | |
Big Data insights enable Fast Data applications. Your data can generate value when it’s aggregated, analyzed, and applied to business decisions. We live for long-term data preservation, and our ActiveScale object storage systems are changing the economics of data. The ActiveScale system architecture is designed for petabyte-scale datasets, facilitates storing data forever, and takes full advantage of our component-to-system vertical innovation. | Store and manage unstructured data at scale using NetApp StorageGRID for secure, durable object storage. Place content in the right location, at the right time, and on the right storage tier, optimizing workflows and reducing overall costs for globally distributed rich media. |
Offer | |
Learn more about HGST ActiveScale | Learn more about NetApp StorageGRID |
Sample Customers | |
| EPFL, Illumination Mac Guff | ASE, DARZ GmbH |
Top Industries | |
No Data Available | Software R&D Company30% Comms Service Provider16% Financial Services Firm14% Manufacturing Company13% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Red Hat, Pure Storage, SwiftStack and others in File and Object Storage. Updated: March 2020.
405,659 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also HGST ActiveScale Reviews, NetApp StorageGRID Reviews, and our list of Best File and Object Storage Companies.
We monitor all File and Object 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.