Compare Hitachi Universal Storage VM vs. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS)

Hitachi Universal Storage VM is ranked 16th in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 2 reviews while NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is ranked 4th in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 77 reviews. Hitachi Universal Storage VM is rated 10.0, while NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Hitachi Universal Storage VM writes "A solid product for high-performance data storage and utilization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) writes "Good price to performance ratio, no latency, and simple to use". Hitachi Universal Storage VM is most compared with Dell EMC Unity, HPE 3PAR Flash Storage and Dell EMC PowerMax NVMe, whereas NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is most compared with Dell EMC Unity, Pure Storage FlashArray and HPE 3PAR Flash Storage. See our Hitachi Universal Storage VM vs. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use Hitachi Universal Storage VM? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about Hitachi Universal Storage VM vs. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,547 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:

Pros
We are a 100% satisfied with the stability of the solution.Stability-wise, this solution is fine.The feature I find most valuable, is the deduplication, because the nature of the data that we are using in our current environment, has a lot of replicated data.The performance of the All-Flash System is very good. There is more enhanced performance and data production in the solution, which I appreciate.The initial setup was really straightforward. It was not complex. Deployment took one month, due to the data migration duration.The FS900 uses custom built flash modules offering with better latency, and is also denser packed then most modular all-flash arrays using commodity SSDs.An easy interface to set up, good build quality, and easily accessible parts for hot swapping combined with sub 500 us latency under heavy load.The initial customer technical support was efficient and effective.

Read more »

The most valuable features are simplified provisioning and management, de-duplication, and built-in encryption.The product has great data storage performance with a 100% data security and availability guarantee.

Read more »

Things that have been really useful, of course, are the clustering features and being able to stay online during failovers and code upgrades; and just being able to seamlessly do all sorts of movement of data without having to disrupt end-users' ability to get to those files. And we can take advantage of new shelves, new hardware, upgrade in place. It's kind of magic when it comes to doing those sorts of things.The ease of use, the SnapMirror capabilities, the cloning, and the efficiencies are all good features.We are using the AQoS operating system, which allows us to get a lot more out of our AFF systems.The most valuable features are the ease of administration and configuration, as well as the speed of deployment.The most important features are the IOPS and the ease of the ONTAP manageability.Before we implemented AFF, Oracle was running on a traditional storage spindle and at a very low speed with high latency, and the database was not running very well. After we converted from the spinning disk to the all-flash array, it was at least four times faster to access the volume than before.The most valuable features of the solution are speed, performance, and reliability.The most valuable feature is speed.

Read more »

Cons
I think the only thing the developers can look at, is that it is limited to 25 gigabytes currently. In the next release they might want to increase that.This solution needs a management console where we are alerted to issues and can report them, or escalate them through email or another method.I would like to see an improvement in the handling of large amounts of rights.The solution is not easy to implement. It takes a lot of time to study the product and it's a little complicated in general.The solution is not able to replicate data in one-to-many scenario.When we performed some HW fault tests under heavy load, we found that some of the parts (fan units and PSUs) should only be removed from the airflow for a short time (less than a minute) when replacing.Include an option to upload the support package to the IBM ECuRep when opening an IBM PMR.

Read more »

The exterior display needs to be improved.The pricing is high, but the product is good. Additional features like data duplication might make it even better.

Read more »

One of the areas that the product can improve is definitely in the user interface. We don't use it for SAN, but we've looked at using it for SAN and the SAN workflows are really problematic for my admins, and they just don't like doing SAN provisioning on that app. That really needs to change if we're going to adopt it and actually consider it to be a strong competitor versus some of the other options out there.There are little things that need improvement. For example, if you are setting up a SnapMirror through the GUI, you are forced to change the destination name of the volume, and we like to keep the volume names the same.The quality of technical support has dwindled over time and needs to be improved.On the fiber channel side, there is a limit of sixteen terabytes on each line, and we would like to see this raised because we are having to use some other products.The certification classes are good, but they don't cover enough of the material, and the exams only test on what is covered in class.The monitor and performance need improvement. Right now we are using the active IQ OnCommand Unified Manager, but we also have to do the Grafana to do the performance and I hope we will be able to see the improvement of the active IQ in terms of the performance graph. It should also be more detailed.Tech support is a place where there is room to improve the product experience. The response time when they are busy is not very good.The price of NVMe storage is very expensive.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
For a yearly license, it is about $100,000. There are no additional costs. The entire system is included.

Read more »

This solution has a good price-performance ratio.It is a little expensive.

Read more »

It's expensive. it's in the hundreds of thousands. It's beneficial, but at times, I feel compared to other vendors, we are paying a premium for the licensing that other vendors include.The price to performance ratio with NetApp is unmatched by any other vendor right now.The pricing is not a lot considering what you get and it bundles hardware and licensing.Comparing this solution to others it may seem expensive, but the price to performance for NetApp is greater.We would like it to be free.One of the reasons we like this solution is that all of the features are included with the one license.We don't like the cost. We would like to buy more.It definitely reduces costs because it simply takes less power to run these systems. While the SSDs don't take power, they are in general very big right now. So, the running cost has decreased for a lot of our customers.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions are best for your needs.
382,547 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Comparisons
Compared 25% of the time.
Also Known As
HUS VMNetApp All Flash FAS, NetApp AFF, NetApp Flash FAS
Learn
IBM
Hitachi
NetApp
Overview
IBM FlashSystem products are enterprise computer data storage systems that store data on flash memory chips. Unlike storage systems that use standard solid-state drives, IBM FlashSystem products incorporate custom hardware based on technology from the 2012 acquisition of Texas Memory Systems. This hardware provides performance, reliability, and efficiency benefits versus competitive offerings.

The Hitachi Universal Storage Platform VM delivers proven enterprise-class functionality — advanced virtualization of externally attached storage, logical partitioning, thin provisioning and universal replication — in flexible, cost effective service oriented configurations. 

NetApp AFF8000 All Flash FAS systems combine all-flash performance with unified data management from flash to disk to cloud.  Leverage the Data Fabric to move data securely across your choice of clouds—enabled by Cloud ONTAP™ and NetApp Private Storage for Cloud. Plus, you get the industry‚Äôs most efficient and comprehensive integrated data protection suite, on premises or in the cloud.

Offer
Learn more about IBM FlashSystem
Learn more about Hitachi Universal Storage VM
Learn more about NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS)
Sample Customers
Celero, Friedhelm Loh Group, Clarks, Mingkang Natregro Health Food Group, Sofia, Etisalat Fights Fraud, UF Health Shands Hospital, Generali, Elecon Engineering Company Limited, Ventiv , Technology, CPFL Energia, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., SciQuest, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, Paddy Power, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Interconnect Services, Severstal IP-Only AB, PVU Group GmbHHanergy Global Solar PV Application Pte LtdAcibadem Healthcare Group, AmTrust Financial Services, Citrix Systems, DWD, Mantra Group
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm45%
Comms Service Provider18%
Government18%
Recruiting/Hr Firm9%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company30%
Financial Services Firm15%
Government12%
Media Company10%
No Data Available
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company16%
Financial Services Firm13%
Energy/Utilities Company9%
Retailer8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company21%
Manufacturing Company14%
Financial Services Firm12%
Comms Service Provider9%
Find out what your peers are saying about Hitachi Universal Storage VM vs. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) and other solutions. Updated: November 2019.
382,547 professionals have used our research since 2012.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage Arrays 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