We performed a comparison between Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] 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."Before we used Pure Storage it took 93 days of employees who run the database to back up and restore databases. The scale of deployment basically went from several days to a few minutes."
"The best feature is consistently lower latency, even when IOPS crank up to over 75K. The product maintains submillisecond response time, which is incredible."
"The most valuable feature is how it simplifies the management of the SAN."
"The deduplication in the array combined with its snap technologies allows the product to be remotely/manually controlled or scheduled."
"Having fast storage allows actual servers to perform in high capacity so we don't have slowdowns on our applications."
"I like its speed. It has all the features that I need."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support."
"Cost, racial per terabyte, and speed is why we chose PureStorage. It was no brainer."
"The most valuable features are simplified provisioning and management, de-duplication, and built-in encryption."
"We have integrated it with VMware. The integration process is pretty good. Especially with VMware, it helps with the capacity of it."
"Pure Storage FlashBlade is user-friendly. It's replication feature is great because it has active replication and active DR. That's the beauty of the product. It's a perfect solution for block storage."
"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 performs well and it is also very fast."
"The solution is able to handle workloads and is easy to use. It allows us to actually manage the boxes in less time."
"It helps simplify our storage, because the user interface is very simple and the installation is easy."
"The main feature I have found to be product replication."
"I would like to see the NAS add-on component become more fault-tolerant than just a single virtual machine running inside the array. I'm unwilling to use it for that reason."
"Its price could be cheaper. It is not the cheapest one out there, but I'm not directly involved in the figures and negotiations."
"A three wave application or multi wave application synchronization would be an improvement."
"The price of the solution can improve."
"Storage. There could be better storage."
"In terms of the future, I have been excited by some of the copy data management stuff that they're talking about building into the environment. There are feature sets where I've done a lot of automation work. So, I am always looking forward to extensions of their API. They're also talking about a phone home centralized analytics database being used as a centralized management console with a list of new cloud features, but this doesn't seem finalized."
"The initial setup was a little complex. We had some initial issues with the design and had to help correct some of the white papers for it, but it wasn't your standard use case."
"The credentials on the iSCSI interface are only available to type in with the Chrome browser, and not with the Firefox browser."
"The exterior display needs to be improved."
"I want efficiency. FlashBlade doesn't have efficiency now."
"I have not seen ROI."
"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."
"In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready."
"The features provided for SMB customers are limited."
"I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."
"I would also like to see better support for CIFS workloads."
"The feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services."
More Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] Pricing and Cost Advice →
Earn 20 points
Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] doesn't meet the minimum requirements to be ranked in All-Flash Storage while Pure Storage FlashBlade is ranked 16th in All-Flash Storage with 31 reviews. Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] is rated 10.0, while Pure Storage FlashBlade is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] writes "Good price-performance ratio, provides simplified provisioning and management". 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". Hitachi Universal Storage VM [EOL] 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.