Compare NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) vs. Pure Storage FlashArray

NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is ranked 4th in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 74 reviews while Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 1st in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 104 reviews. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is rated 9.0, while Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) writes "Good price to performance ratio, no latency, and simple to use". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "A solution with high performance that is easy to install, troubleshoot, and manage capacity". NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is most compared with Dell EMC Unity, Pure Storage FlashArray and HPE 3PAR Flash Storage, whereas Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with Dell EMC Unity, NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) and Nimble Storage. See our NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) vs. Pure Storage FlashArray report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) vs. Pure Storage FlashArray and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
391,616 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
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 »

We also use VMware integrations developed by Pure, their plugins in our vCenter environment. They help by allowing our non-technical operations teams to deploy new data stores and resize data stores without me having to involve myself all the time to do those simple tasks.Their REST API is wonderful, well-documented, and easy to use.As soon as we introduced our first Pure Storage FlashArray, the first benefit was at least twice the performance increase. Our production databases simply ran twice as fast with no other change.Pure Storage technology allowed us to automate tasks, reducing something which started as a 12-hour turnaround down to about 15 minutes.The data reduction technology part of the scalability has been impressive, like its ability to host additional workloads, volumes of data, and databases.The performance is very good.For us, the most valuable feature is the compression and deduplication. Being able to deploy a three to one ratio for storage is absolutely critical in today's world with the growing need for storage and the growing need for more space.The ease of management is one of the most valuable features of this solution. I would have also said that it's pretty fast but now our SQL servers are starting to beat it up pretty bad.

Read more »

Cons
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 »

If they could make it cheaper, that would be something.The higher education moves slowly. We are still looking forward to implementing the full list of existing features.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.Storage. There could be better storage.The scalability of the solution is not as good as it probably could be.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.We would like to see better troubleshooting aspects. It helps us if we can find out where the problem is. Right now, it's difficult. Sometimes it's difficult to pinpoint the issue. If they had more visibility and more troubleshooting feature built into the tool that would really help.In the next release of this solution, we would like to see automated copy data management for SQL Server.

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
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 »

In terms of other contemporary arrays, Pure is something you need to have a use case for, as it's not priced for you to buy one off-the-shelf. If you have a use case, heavy lift Oracle Databases, any type of noticeable virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI), or need low latency and high throughput, you should consider all-flash at least and probably Pure Storage.I don't know the exact cost but it's around $1,000.Pure has been flexible with us on the pricing models.We have 16 or 18 arrays. We like to do the three-year support model so that we get Evergreen and therefore, we get free upgrades. We pay around more than 1.5 million dollars.Our costs are around $100,000.I have had a couple of customers who have complained about the cost. It can be a little more expensive than some of the other platforms. After it has been installed, I have never had a customer say, "I wish we wouldn't have spent all that extra money." They have always been happy with the product after it has been installed. They might be on the fence about it because of the price, but everybody who I have ever seen install it, they are always happy with it.We evaluated Oracle and Hitachi, but Pure Storage had the better pricing.The cost has room for improvement.

Read more »

report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions are best for your needs.
391,616 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
4th
Views
25,937
Comparisons
17,187
Reviews
74
Average Words per Review
738
Avg. Rating
9.0
1st
Views
38,692
Comparisons
22,231
Reviews
102
Average Words per Review
519
Avg. Rating
9.1
Top Comparisons
Also Known As
NetApp All Flash FAS, NetApp AFF, NetApp Flash FAS
Learn
NetApp
Pure Storage
Overview

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’s most efficient and comprehensive integrated data protection suite, on premises or in the cloud.

Pure Storage FlashArray is the world’s first enterprise-class, all-NVMe flash storage array. It represents a new class of storage – shared accelerated storage, that delivers major breakthroughs in performance, simplicity, and consolidation. Pure Storage is fresh and modern today and will be for the next decade. Without forklift upgrades or planned downtime, Pure takes the work out of storage ownership and delivers unprecedented customer satisfaction.

Offer
Learn more about NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS)
Learn more about Pure Storage FlashArray
Sample Customers
Acibadem Healthcare Group, AmTrust Financial Services, Citrix Systems, DWD, Mantra GroupNielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company16%
Financial Services Firm13%
Energy/Utilities Company9%
Retailer8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company22%
Manufacturing Company17%
Financial Services Firm10%
Comms Service Provider10%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm20%
Healthcare Company16%
Government10%
Manufacturing Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company27%
Comms Service Provider11%
Financial Services Firm8%
Government7%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business12%
Midsize Enterprise12%
Large Enterprise76%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise9%
Large Enterprise68%
REVIEWERS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise19%
Large Enterprise58%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business32%
Midsize Enterprise14%
Large Enterprise54%
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) vs. Pure Storage FlashArray and other solutions. Updated: January 2020.
391,616 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.