We performed a comparison between NetApp FAS Series and NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, NetApp AFF (All Flash FAS) came out ahead of NetApp FAS Series. Although both products have similar deployment difficulty and quality of support, NetApp FAS Series has fewer valuable features and should move towards adopting more all-flash capabilities.
"Pure Storage is extremely reliable — it's never failed."
"It has made working with storage as easy and simple as it should be."
"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."
"It upgrades in place which means we'll be using it well into the future."
"It does efficient work of storing data while still delivering the performance that you would normally expect from a higher priced solution."
"The all-flash disc is the most valuable feature of this solution."
"The tool has reduced our power consumption."
"We like the speed. It's very low latency. In virtualization, you can mask lots of problems, and even in code you can mask lots of problems, with low latency. It's just pure speed and low latency."
"Performance is excellent. In fact, it's so fast that we're not really even taxing it all that much."
"The most valuable features are the IO performance that we get, the cluster part, and the increased workload and performance with the SSDs."
"Speed. it's very performance designed. It's designed to have a lot of high speed."
"We are spending less time putting out fires, so there's a tangible benefit right there."
"In terms of the footprint, it is far more efficient. It has smaller, higher-capacity drives than our older unit. In terms of space, power, and cooling, it has simplified things."
"The most valuable features are the low latency and high-performance."
"It is a stable solution."
"The most valuable feature is the support. If we have any issues, we can call into NetApp and their support is really good."
"Snapshot, deduplication, and compression features are valuable."
"It offers data compression and people management."
"This solution provides us with easy management and great vendor support."
"The product is user-friendly and helps to evaluate the performance of each node. It ensures that if one node encounters an issue, the system can immediately redistribute the workload without interruptions. This setup provides uninterrupted operation for our systems."
"A reliable and easily managed storage system is a key performance factor. The system also has more features than we require."
"The file sharing feature is most valuable."
"We can manage our applications from a single dashboard."
"Better performance and lower costs."
"We would like to be able to connect to data tape for backup, specifically to the LTO backups."
"Beyond a certain amount of petabytes, you have to have a separate system. Basically, it's not infinitely scalable."
"I think replication is one area that still needs improvement. Earlier, Pure Storage FlashArray only had IP-based replication. There was no API-based replication, but they have enhanced the feature now. However, they need to work on API replication for C-type of arrays."
"We need to add more storage in Pure Storage FlashArray with the cluster mode activated for us to have better performance."
"The solution could improve by having a multi-tenant feature."
"The technical support is okay, but could be improved."
"Pure Storage will have issues with positioning in the near future since its a relatively new company. For now, customers need a PoC to trust using the solution, as it can't stand on its brand name alone. They need to improve Pure Storage's marketing."
"I would love to see a true one click upgrade solution. Right now, you have to click and schedule an appointment with Pure Storage to be able to upgrade. I would love for it to automatically download, install, and fall-over every controller as it updates."
"I've had a few cases where support wasn't able to answer the question or they took quite a while."
"The quality of technical support has dwindled over time and needs to be improved."
"The user interface should be more user-friendly, and the configuration could be more accessible."
"The size of NetApp could be better. They're always about 40 pounds without the hard drives in them, so it would be great if there's a way to make them smaller yet keep the functionality. That would reduce the physical footprint."
"I need faster Fibre Channel over Ethernet. They top out at 10GBs today and I would like that to go to 40 or 100."
"We would like to have more behavioral reporting."
"The upgrade process could be a lot quicker, but it's still good as it is. The failovers and things like that are harder than expected."
"NetApp AFF needs to focus more on block storage. It has to focus on high-end, performance-driven applications."
"The only downside is in ease in management; it is not easy to use."
"It lacks automatic tiering, When you use data, some of it goes cold. It is not hot data, so the system should automatically move that data to the SATA, while the hot data is kept on tier-one, the SaaS or SSD drives."
"I would like to see NetApp add incident support."
"The user interface could be improved."
"We have some experience with older equipment end-of-life. For example, when warranty support stops or updates stop – it can be frustrating. Not all clients can buy a new filer every year or two, and NetApp ending support a bit quickly can be a concern."
"The solution can improve on the replication features."
"Needs more SAN support."
"We are not able to connect to the support of NetApp from Sudan. We have to go through many agents for support, which makes it difficult."
NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 5th in Deduplication Software with 98 reviews. NetApp AFF is rated 9.0, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers good performance and ". NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, VMware vSAN and VAST Data, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell PowerScale (Isilon), HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), IBM FlashSystem and HPE StoreEasy. See our NetApp AFF vs. NetApp FAS Series report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage 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.