We performed a comparison between IBM FlashSystem and NetApp FAS Series 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."It helps to simplify storage. For most of our customers, when they move to Pure Storage, storage becomes an afterthought."
"The most valuable feature is its data reduction."
"The speed of the Pure FlashArray is very, very fast and nothing in the market can compare to it."
"The speed is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"It simplifies the overall management. We don't have to worry about storage anymore."
"I have seen a huge increase in speed and performance on our databases."
"It does efficient work of storing data while still delivering the performance that you would normally expect from a higher priced solution."
"Performance is the most valuable feature."
"Data deduplication is one of the most valuable features of this solution."
"The performance of the All-Flash System is very good. There is more enhanced performance and data production in the solution, which I appreciate."
"We are a 100% satisfied with the stability of the solution."
"This solution is convenient, user-friendly, convenient and reliable."
"The solution is scalable and has varying degrees of scalability."
"The most valuable features are, of course, the virtualization of the storage, the performance, and the compression."
"The power systems are very reliable if you are running 24/7 operations. For ongoing mission-critical applications, it's the best solution."
"High availability and enhanced security; Proven dependability; Data compression with hardware acceleration; Advanced copy services features are all in this product."
"Good for NAS and unified solutions."
"This solution provides us with easy management and great vendor support."
"The solution is stable."
"The support is very good."
"Fast Snapshots"
"It is very easy to expand disks and manage CIFS."
"The file sharing feature is most valuable."
"The product is flexible."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I want to learn more about command line usage which I have not explored much yet. However, there are many automated solutions for repetitive tasks. I would like to see additional features like performance monitoring, configuring of alerts, and the customization of alert thresholds in the next release."
"Having something native in the Pure Storage ecosystem would make it integrated and in one single company, and we wouldn't have to work with multiple organizations."
"There are scenarios with very specific functionality around VMware integration particularly to do with the way we'd like to manage LUNs in VMware. The tools are pretty good but there's room for improvement there."
"I would like a feature to integrate with external or cloud solutions. For example, if I want to use this storage for a backup from the cloud, I want to have integration with the cloud vendors, such as Microsoft, Oracles, or Amazon. It could be available as an API to allow seamless integration. Additionally, the solution could improve by having native integration with a cloud provider, such as VMware or Microsoft, this would reduce the need to use third-party solutions to complete the task."
"The primary drawback is the cost, which can be prohibitive for small configurations."
"It has room for improvement in the area of stability."
"The data reduction pool feature sucks and is not recommended for use with heavy workloads."
"The solution has a low number of NVME host attachments at 16 per IO group over the fiber channel."
"Their technical support needs improvement in terms of reachability for the clients and response times. They should be more responsive and have more online platforms for support. They should make more technical information available online. There could be some kind of documentation community."
"IBM FlashSystems is lagging in optimizing storage technologies."
"They can improve its initial configuration. The initial configuration is currently very difficult. There are multiple choices or alternative ways to configure based on the use case and what you are targeting out of the device, that is, more capacity or more performance. These multiple alternatives cause a lot of confusion. They should increase the processing part of the nodes. Currently, you can cluster up to eight nodes. From my experience and the workload that I am facing in my environment currently, I would like to see either a bigger or stronger node or a larger number of nodes that can be clustered together. We formally communicated to them that we need to see either this or that, and they are working on something."
"In the next release having the next level of high-speed performance would be great."
"There could be some extra features added."
"NetApp FAS Series should improve its price, which is expensive."
"The NetApp FAS Series is not as high-performing and is not as fast. Its speed needs improvement, but this could only be done if it's an all-flash solution."
"Dedicated storage efficiency accelerators could improve the overall performance of the system."
"The one aspect of the solution that's negative for us is also more unique to us due to the fact that we did a MetroCluster. The tiebreaker piece that does the monitoring of the two different locations, and determines if one is not talking to the network normally (or if it's truly down) is a little difficult. It feels like it was not designed from the beginning to fit well into the other pieces. It feels like it was thrown in at the last minute and it is not smooth."
"As I see it, there could be more interfaces, more cache, etc."
"The solution can improve on the replication features."
"NetApp needs to put its OS on a microchip rather than on disks."
"The user interface could be improved to have better graphics and the performance analyzer could be better."
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.
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 5th in NAS with 19 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 2nd in NAS with 19 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "Stable, and scalable, and we can expand arrays with a single disk". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers fast data transfer between NetApp systems and highly scalable, accommodating clusters with significant storage capacity". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and HPE StorageWorks MSA, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), NetApp AFF, HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain) and HPE StoreEasy. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp FAS Series report.
See our list of best NAS vendors, best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors, and best All-Flash Storage 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.