We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and NetApp NVMe AFF A800 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two All-Flash Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"Performance, dedupe, and that it works well with database workloads are its most valuable features."
"The back-end data reporting for Pure Storage is phenomenal. The data that you can see on the performance of your customers' array, so you can be proactive about upgrades or enhancements, and is a phenomenal tool to have access to as a partner. I haven't seen this type of stuff out of anything of the other storage systems."
"What I like most about this solution, is the speed, resiliency and scalability."
"They are quite responsive and our local team was pretty good."
"Running SAP on Pure Storage helps a lot without doing any further tuning to improve application performance. Our internal clients are happy."
"Pure Storage is extremely reliable — it's never failed."
"Provides fast access and is user-friendly."
"It is pretty much just plug and play. There is not that much to do with it. It is very easy to use."
"The product provides a good storage space."
"The performance was decent."
"The most valuable features in Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series are Shadowimage, easy to manage equipment, and upgrading the firewire is very simple."
"The solution is very user-friendly in terms of maintenance and configuration. It's also possible to connect the solution to other storage management solutions."
"One of the features, for us, that is important is the monitoring platform integrated into the solution. It has all the elements that we need to see, at all times, to be sure the platform is working right."
"Hitachi's technical support is perfect."
"Its scalability and performance are the most valuable. It is quite scalable and has a huge capacity."
"The product has great data storage performance with a 100% data security and availability guarantee."
"The product can be scaled vertically as well as horizontally."
"Low latency is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable features are stability and performance."
"Over the eight years, we've been using NetApp with ONTAP, we've never lost a bit of data, and we've only experienced a few minutes of downtime in that entire time."
"The storage features are valuable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a product that is fast and provides a fast I/O."
"During the use cases of the solution, its reliability and suitability are the best."
"NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is easier to use than some other solutions and the UI is very good to use for day-to-day activities. Overall, the solution has good technology."
"It is not possible to create a cluster on top of multiple arrays."
"I would like to get a weekly report of how our storage has been used, and if there is any storage sitting there not being used."
"It's too early to tell if we've seen a reduction in total cost of ownership. The solution is expensive."
"We understand that they're thinking about it, but one of the things that would be nice is if they added some basic file-level capabilities to the platform. The idea is that they would run a basic NFS or CIF share from the controllers. FlashBlade is the powerhouse for File and Object storage, but if you don't need all that power, a lightweight file function would make FlashArrays more versatile."
"The data reduction that we had initially anticipated when we bought Pure and we move over, is way lower than the expected reduction. It depends on the workloads, of course. But that has been a challenge at times."
"In the next release, I would like to see file-level encryption."
"I would like to see some improvements on the FlashBlade side around the CIFS space support. I am not super familiar with all the different NAS protocols that they run on their box, but there could be some improvements made on SMB CIFS side."
"The price of Pure Storage FlashArray could be better."
"We have not been able to procure more discs for upcoming projects and this has been a problem for us. Not having additional storage is going to be an issue. The solution is at its end of life and will be replaced soon."
"We've only faced some minor issues. For example, the documentation of some features isn't as detailed as we would like."
"The initial setup was difficult, as we don't have access to assistance. We had some issues around configuration. We needed to know things like what kind of rate is the best, or what kind of replication is ideal. We had to seek out answers online to get the information we needed."
"One improvement I am hoping for in the next release is unified storage."
"There is a drawback related to Hitachi's configuration flexibility. The Hitachi storage platform solution is not flexible. That means that both the Hitachi and the partner presale guys have to do a lot of work to design a solution."
"If they had a certain approach to layered storage, it would be better. For example, adaption to the browser, or having a centralized console."
"The initial deployment was somewhat complex when it came to the installation because of the network connectivity. It was more difficult, in this specific case, than with other platforms."
"In terms of what could be improved, it could use a better, faster web console and other consoles. It is so boring waiting, waiting and waiting for it to refresh."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"The product’s UI could be better."
"Increasing the RAM, and including physical cords would be beneficial."
"The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach."
"The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better."
"The initial setup is complex."
"Stability is an area with a certain shortcoming where the solution needs to improve"
"The cost of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal if they could adjust it so that it's a but less."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 10th in All-Flash Storage with 48 reviews while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is ranked 17th in All-Flash Storage with 10 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "It's a high-performing solution with strong architecture". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp NVMe AFF A800 writes "Very easy to manage, highly stable and offers robustness of the CLI, API, and GUI ". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and NetApp FAS Series, whereas NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Huawei OceanStor Dorado, Dell PowerMax NVMe and NetApp AFF. See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. NetApp NVMe AFF A800 report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors and best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.
