We performed a comparison between Hitachi NAS Platform and IBM FlashSystem based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Simple and extremely reliable."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to handle a high number of users while maintaining both stability and performance."
"The product’s technical support services are good."
"Hitachi NAS Platform is very stable."
"Hitachi is reliable with high availability and solid performance. It performs well regardless of the workload."
"The pricing of this solution is good, which is an advantage that positions this product well."
"The product has valuable features for data migration."
"The most valuable features of IBM FlashSystem are performance and security."
"The valuable features are high availability, compression, and a failover mechanism. It's a very highly available storage solution."
"This solution is convenient, user-friendly, convenient and reliable."
"The FlashSystem 900 consistently delivers performance below 1ms for read/write. This performance is essential for an effective SVC stretch-cluster configuration across two datacenters, and presenting active-active storage to the customer."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is compression."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and performance."
"IBM FlashSystem is a flexible solution with plenty of features."
"The performance monitoring feature is useful as it can report in 15 minute intervals by hour, day, week, month, or by a custom date range."
"Hitachi NAS Platform is expensive."
"I would like to see the inclusion of support for cloud-connectivity to providers like AWS."
"I do not like Hitachi NAS because it's an old-school NAS solution, compared to the other, newer-type solutions such as Isilon from Dell or Qumulo."
"The monitoring tool is not well developed."
"I encounter challenges while installing the upgrades for the product."
"Hitachi NAS Platform's pricing could be reduced. It is high compared to other competitors."
"Hitachi could be more flexible and have a simpler management interface."
"They don't offer subscription-based payments."
"The ease of installation should be improved. We had issues with the configuration model."
"In IBM FlashSystem, data reduction is an area with shortcomings where improvements can be made in the future."
"Replication features need improvement. Currently, they are there in the product, but I'm not sure as to how it works exactly."
"The interface could improve in IBM FlashSystem."
"I have looked at a few pages of a report I download and I saw a graph there regarding software-defined vendors. IBM is not in a good position on this graph. I know that they are working very hard on this, to make it much better and to get to a level where it's not only hardware but also software to provide a complete solution."
"I would like to see bigger modules."
"This product lacks some of the options we wanted. For example, expansion was difficult and it required a lot of patching to be done."
Hitachi NAS Platform is ranked 15th in NAS with 8 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews. Hitachi NAS Platform is rated 6.8, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Hitachi NAS Platform writes "Easy-to-manage product with efficient backup features ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". Hitachi NAS Platform is most compared with NetApp FAS Series, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell PowerScale (Isilon) and Qumulo, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform. See our Hitachi NAS Platform vs. IBM FlashSystem report.
See our list of best NAS vendors.
We monitor all NAS 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.