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

NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is ranked 4th in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 80 reviews while Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 106 reviews. NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) is rated 9.2, while Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) writes "Supported our overall business initiatives, they've done a great job with cybersecurity ". 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: September 2019.
371,062 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
Tech support has been absolutely amazing. I think on the technical aspects as well, my staff is able to get great support from the NetApp technical support resources that we have. What I love about NetApp is they have a health care division. At times, it's such an amazing thing because if we have a healthcare-related issue, there's no one better than having prior CIOs from health care organizations that NetApp has hired, and that are part of the health care team, to help out with any of those initiatives and support problems. Support has been absolutely phenomenal.The valuable features are the fabric pool. We are taking our cold data and pumping it straight into an estuary bucket. Also, efficiency. We're getting about two and a half times upwards of data efficiency through compaction, compression, deduplication, and it's size. When we refreshed from two or three racks of spinning discs down into 5U of rack space, it not only saved us a whole heap of costs in our data center environment but also it's nice to be green. The power savings alone equated to be about 50 tons of CO2 a year that we no longer emit. It's a big game changer.The features that I found most valuable are SnapMirror and SnapVault; these provide DR and backup for data redundancy.Its efficiency and scalability are the most valuable features.The most valuable features for AFF are the speed, durability, back up, the time, the workloads that we are using currently are much faster than what they used to be. We're getting a lot of different things out of All Flash.Previously we had migrated from Dell EMC and we had a lot of difficulties moving data around. Now, if we need to move it to any slower storage, we can move it with just a vault move within the cluster. Even moving data between clusters is extremely simple using SnapMirror. The mobility options for data in All Flash FAS have been awesome.NetApp tech support is so good. Their tech support has always been so stable and the people are so good in case of any failure or any good feature that needs to be updated or features that supposedly can help with performance to improve some performance. NetApp support is one of the best that I deal with.Scalability is excellent. If we need more space, it's a no downtime solution. It's harder to get the funding than it is to get the solution itself.

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
The total cost of ownership has increased a little.I would like for them to develop the ability to detach the fabric pool. Once you've added it to an aggregate it's there for life and it would be nice to disconnect it if we ever had to.I would like to see an improvement in the high availability of the NFS and CIFS sharing during upgrade and patching; this would help to avoid downtime.The scaling needs improvement. NetApp is limited for scaling options.The bad part about having scalability is the expense. It is currently extremely expensive, to be able to scale so fast on flash.As for AFF itself, I don't have any suggestions of what I would be excited about seeing. I think that adding the support for the rest of APIs to AFF would be super handy. I think it's something that we've been waiting for for a while which would be fantastic.I would like to see the ability to include more applications from applications to managed storage. If we can have more applications or more interface in more applications, that would be great.I come tech support with difficulty because I installed NetApp for many years I know what to expect when I call. When I don't get their support tech that I'm expecting and I'm trying to get to the right one, it can get very frustrating for me personally, trying to all-flash push my way into the right person. NetApp has the right people, it's just a matter of getting to them.

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
With other options, you need to buy a couple of different products to achieve the same outcome.Our TCO has increased by 15 to 18 percent.Using NetApp, our total cost of ownership decreased by 17%.Our TCO decreased significantly because we were paying maintenance on nine different arrays throughout the country. We've condensed those down to three arrays, and our maintenance fees from the IBM product dropped by over a half million dollars a year, saving us $500,000 USD.The total cost, the pricing of it, has gone up quite a bit.Disk level encryption is already in the solution, but it is very costly. Its pricing should come down.From an application standpoint, we have seen a lot of return investment on the speeds and responsiveness of the actual storage.Our total cost of ownership (TCO) has decreased by 40 percent.

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.
371,062 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Ranking
4th
Views
25,972
Comparisons
17,240
Reviews
80
Average Words per Review
594
Avg. Rating
9.2
2nd
Views
38,205
Comparisons
22,382
Reviews
102
Average Words per Review
520
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)
See It In Action

Schedule Your Free Pure Storage Demo Now

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 Firm11%
Retailer9%
Energy/Utilities Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company18%
Manufacturing Company15%
Financial Services Firm14%
Healthcare Company9%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm20%
Healthcare Company16%
Government10%
Manufacturing Company8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Software R&D Company22%
Financial Services Firm12%
Comms Service Provider9%
Manufacturing Company8%
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business11%
Midsize Enterprise12%
Large Enterprise77%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise11%
Large Enterprise66%
REVIEWERS
Small Business23%
Midsize Enterprise19%
Large Enterprise58%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business30%
Midsize Enterprise13%
Large Enterprise57%
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) vs. Pure Storage FlashArray and other solutions. Updated: September 2019.
371,062 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.
Sign Up with Email