We performed a comparison between Hitachi VSP E Series and NetApp AFF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Performance is the most valuable feature."
"Data reduction and compression. Sub millisecond latency."
"It does efficient work of storing data while still delivering the performance that you would normally expect from a higher priced solution."
"Cost, racial per terabyte, and speed is why we chose PureStorage. It was no brainer."
"Support has been helpful."
"It has made working with storage as easy and simple as it should be."
"The most valuable feature is its speed."
"Having an intuitive user interface to get things running is great."
"It offers good file sharing."
"We are using the Hitachi VSP E Series for high IOPS."
"Its user-friendly configuration and maintenance processes contribute to its reputation for being straightforward and easily manageable."
"I like how easy it is to discover an issue and either resolve that issue or fine-tune that app to premium support to find that resolution."
"NetApp AFF handles tier-one workloads, including home drives, departmental shares, group shares, and application shares."
"We had some customers who were running virtualization workloads on classical spinning disks. We implemented an AFF system, and they got a huge performance boost out of it because the latency of the SSDs is simply much lower. Actually, most customers benefit from the improved latency and performance from the AFF systems."
"The most valuable features of this solution are snapshotting and cloning."
"Storage is very reliable. You don't have to do much maintenance."
"The solution’s thin provisioning has allowed us to add new applications without having to purchase additional storage. We use thin provisioning for everything. We use the deduplication compression functionality for all of our NetApps. If we weren't using thin provisioning, we'd probably have two to times more storage on our floor right now than we do today."
"It impacts customer retention because of its overall ease. When you are running a business, where time is a factor, that is the biggest selling point. Things happen really rapidly, when they happen, and being able to say, "Yeah, we can get this up and running in a day, if you want," or even less time in some cases. Sometimes, that can be what makes or breaks our case."
"Easier to manage with the clustered system and everything with the newest ONTAP 9."
"Had some issues with Purity not being entirely compatible with VMware ESXi."
"We would like to be able to connect to data tape for backup, specifically to the LTO backups."
"A year ago they promised that they would be able to read through the database encryption with more metric and they have not delivered on that patch, which is significant because it gives us back so much more storage room. We want to be able to read through the encryption."
"From a scalability perspective, it is a very small storage solution, so it's not very expandable."
"The primary drawback is the cost, which can be prohibitive for small configurations."
"The setup needs to be improved the most. They can do a little more with the user interface, but the setup is what I would like to see made a bit easier."
"It would be good to have metrics of the box's performance so we can see what it delivers, but currently, I can't see what it's actually doing."
"Some services could be inserted directly into the SAN, so Pure Storage could complete with the HyperFlex."
"There is room for improvement in simplifying the overall complexity of the environment."
"The solution's support duration or end-of-support life is very short."
"The graphical user interface is somewhat outdated, lacking some of the modern features found in other solutions."
"It would be much better if you had it more like the way they do Metro Clusters, where they have a switch, and the storage is all attached to a switch."
"The price of NVMe storage is very expensive."
"We should be able to manage NetApp AFF as per the desired usage and needs."
"We only had a few upgrade issues."
"For ONTAP, in general, the deduplication ratio and Snapshot limitation are areas that need improvement. There is a global limitation on the number of Snapshots or clones that can be spun off of a particular Snapshot. If those limitations are increased, it might be helpful."
"There needs to be compatibility with upgraded applications. We don't want the system to be upgraded, but not have backwards compatible to existing applications."
"The dashboard needs improvement. The dashboard needs some uplift"
"The stability is good but there is room for improvement with other options."
Hitachi VSP E Series is ranked 14th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 3 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 280 reviews. Hitachi VSP E Series is rated 6.4, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Hitachi VSP E Series writes "A stable NVMe storage solution that can be used for high IOPS". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". Hitachi VSP E Series is most compared with Dell PowerStore and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and NetApp FAS Series. See our Hitachi VSP E Series vs. NetApp AFF report.
See our list of best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors.
We monitor all NVMe 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.