NetApp All Flash FAS vs. Pure Storage FlashArray

NetApp All Flash FAS is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 94 reviews vs Pure Storage FlashArray which is ranked 4th in All-Flash Storage Arrays with 22 reviews. The top reviewer of NetApp All Flash FAS writes "Integrates seamlessly with what we're used to for FAS while getting the raw performance of flash". The top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "The data reduction technology part of the scalability has been impressive, like its ability to host additional workloads, volumes of data, and databases". NetApp All Flash FAS is most compared with Pure Storage FlashArray, HPE 3PAR Flash Storage and Dell EMC Unity. Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with NetApp All Flash FAS, Dell EMC XtremIO Flash and Nimble Storage. See our NetApp All Flash FAS vs. Pure Storage FlashArray report.
Cancel
You must select at least 2 products to compare!
Most Helpful Review
Use Null Product? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp All Flash FAS vs. Pure Storage FlashArray and others in All-Flash Storage Arrays.
305,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Quotes From Members Comparing NetApp All Flash FAS vs. Pure Storage FlashArray

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros
This solution makes everything a lot faster. The time to move data around, boot and migrate VMs is much faster.When we move to all-flash, our response times were reduced to microseconds.It has improved performance for our enterprise applications, data analytics, and VMs. These improvements are a result of all-flash, throughput, reliability, compression, etc.There are many reports accessing the applications. We receive them very quickly. We used to wait a long time for them. Now, you just need to wait a moment.If you need a replacement part, they will provide it.My favorite part is all-flash solid drives. All of my applications are running on an all-flash array. Before, we used to get too many severity tickets on performance, but as soon as we migrated everything to an all-flash array, our critical applications are at top performance.NetApp AFF is based on Unix, which makes it secure.The file-based protocol supports NFS and CIFS.

Read more »

We are very happy with the data deduplication and compression ratio that we have on the platform.The console is simple to use. It has good performance. It is easy to install, understand, and manage, with a good ratio of deduplication and compression. It is doing its job.It helps simplify storage. When you're running Pure all-flash, you don't have to do a lot of the old Oracle best practices. You don't have to worry about putting log files on a different disk channel than the data files, and those types of issues... That has made it vastly easier to do large volumes, rapid provisioning in databases, without taking a performance hit.We like the data reduction rates. That has been really helpful. You get 4U of Pure storage replacing something like two racks of spinning disks. One of the things that has contributed to that are the data reduction rates.We're able to get higher-density workloads on the same infrastructure, and we have a smaller physical footprint. The performance is excellent – during our test the bottlenecks are never on the X array, it just keeps picking up the pace to match what you need. The real-time visibility is a differentiator in my opinion.The ease of use. That's what our customers love. They say it's very easy, they don't need special training, they don't need to call us or any other company or integrator to help them do their job. That's the main reason they purchase Pure.It is an SSD array that has awesome performance, low submillisecond latency, and does what it is supposed to do. It just works, which is difficult for things to do anymore.Its array houses our entire production environment.

Read more »

Read more »

Cons
I need faster Fibre Channel over Ethernet. They top out at 10GBs today and I would like that to go to 40 or 100.One of the features that I am looking for, which is already in the works, is to be able to take my code and automatically move it to the cloud.We would like to have more behavioral reporting.To be more competitive in the industry, they can develop deduplication, compression, and smarter features in the same array instead of all-flash.There are some bugs with the solution which need to be fixed.Technical support is a little lackluster. Some of the issues that we've had were opening up tickets. They seem to be routed in the wrong direction or it takes one or two days to get a call back for simple tasks.Going forward, I would like improvement in the response latencies, capacity size, cache, and controller size.On the roadmap, NetApp is improving the solution's storage efficiency, compression algorithms to achieve more space savings, and the management interfaces. We are looking forward to these feature additions in the next release.

Read more »

They could improve the price.The only time that we had problems with it was that there was a bug in the VVol implementation but, outside of that, it has been flawless.We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency.I would like to see more detailed reporting on the data. However, it would be nice to know what are the exact VMs usage after deduplication and/or what that VMs actual latency and bandwidth is, outside of VMware.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.We would like to see more development on their Copy Automation Tool (CAT) for Oracle, as well as better integration for our customers running Oracle VM.They have a product, FlashBlade, which is their object storage integration, and that's something that we haven't integrated with yet. This might be an area for additional focus as it would play into scalability, because the very nature of object storage is its infinitely scalable.I would like to get a weekly report of how our storage has been used, and if there is any storage sitting there not being used.

Read more »

Read more »

Pricing and Cost Advice
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.I am able to store two times more data than what I'm purchasing, which affects the way funds are being utilized.

Read more »

We have seen a reduction in TCO.The price-to-performance is good. I looked at Pure about three to four years back, but the price-to-performance wasn't right for us. Now, it's right.Pure is not a cheap product. It is not something that is inexpensive. But, the total cost of ownership tends to be lower than with other solutions, because you don't need a lot of expertise, you don't need a lot of training or very expensive engineers or very expensive consultants.Pure Storage is all-flash, so this sometimes tends to make it a bit more expensive in the beginning.It is light years beyond anything else with the same price point.It is a cheaper solution.With Pure Storage, we would like to continue seeing price reductions with flash storage. I don't think we're any different than anybody else when we continue to look to the industry for price reductions of both NVMe and traditional SSD storage. We would like to see these prices continue to decline and erode, even displacing large spinning disks.We have seen a reduction in total cost of ownership (TCO).

Read more »

Information Not Available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions are best for your needs.
305,759 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Answers from the Community
Rhea Rapps
Bunyamin TasdemirReal User

Hello, We don't use AFF but we used 8020 SAS and 8020 SSD and we replaced them to PURE. IO problems minimized, volume limitations resolved
I degraded servers ram and cpu which were working on Netapp but when i moved systems to PURE, they started working as never degraded

18 January 18
Jean Carlos Bitencourt Da SilvaUser

Hello,
In the design of choice of our AllFlash storage we tested several equipments, among them NETAPP and PURE. The finalists were: PURE / NETAPP / EMC. All delivered the performance and features that we had as success requirements. But ... our choice was PURE for simplicity of implementation and management, in addition to its innovative licensing model where you have the right to use everything that is implemented and what will be implemented yet you will also have right of use. We have been with PURE for 12 months and very satisfied with the results.

17 January 18
Phyo Pyah SoeUser

Answer:
I assume your inquiry that you wanna know the difference between NetApp AFF series storage system and Pure storage system. So let me briefly explain about the NetApp storage first. There are three series of NetApp storage: E series, FAS series, and AFF series.
In NetApp storage, read/write performance is really so fast because it is not directly read/write into the hard disk. It works via NVRAM first.
AFF is the most reliable and fastest storage system in NetApp. It is all flash series. NetApp has a lot of feature as free although DELL EMC, IBM are charged for the same feature. Eg. Volume move feature and Deduplication feature are free in NetApp, but not at other storages.
Then NetApp can scale up and scale out easily. If I explain more about NetApp scale out/up infrastructure how it is easy, please read detail below explanation,
We know there are three levels in IT infrastructures: Entry, Middle, Enterprise. In Entry level and Middle level, most of Storage Vendors can scale up by adding Disk or Disk Shelves as like NetApp, but for scale out, they cannot extend other clusters (new storage). NetApp can only scale up and scale out for all level at all NetApp models. Other storage vendors can scale out only at Enterprise level model.

18 January 18
reviewer503028User

I don’t have a NetApp AFF array. Our NetApp is actually quite old so I’m sure that taints my experience but from that experience, I will say it’s night and day difference between Pure and NetApp in ease of use, support, and customer service. Pure is set it and forget. It’s been mostly hands-off since we purchased it which for our team was a big selling point. I believe the NetApp AFF we were looking at still had some quirks with how patching was done even down to updating firmware on the individual drives. The NetApp allowed for more tuning of the pools whereas the Pure managed it all behind the scenes. In a larger environment, those may be selling features for the NetApp but those things were detractors for us as we don’t have a dedicated storage admin.

Hope that helps.

17 January 18
it_user441645Real User

I have experience in all-flash with Pure-Storage, in the past all my Oracle databases are running in VNX, since then, I have migrated them to Pure-Storage I have the best performance with more IOPs and low latency and good efficiency (from 33TB net to 80TB net with DDR 3:5)

All my Oracle databases have many and large transactions for reading and writing. Another important point, I have replicated in sync mode to other Datacenter via Oracle Dataguard from my Pure to VNX and the performance is good.

On NetApp flash, I don't have experience. my NetApp has only SAS disks and we use this for recorder images from Milestone app.

I hope that my comments can help you.

18 January 18
Ranking
Views
42,819
Comparisons
16,339
Reviews
102
Followers
1,376
Avg. Rating
8.9
Views
45,448
Comparisons
22,454
Reviews
22
Followers
1,328
Avg. Rating
9.5
Unranked
In All-Flash Storage Arrays
Top Comparisons
See more NetApp All Flash FAS competitors »See more Pure Storage FlashArray competitors »
Compared 29% of the time.
Also Known As
NetApp AFF, NetApp Flash FAS
Learn how it works
NetApp
Pure Storage
Null Vendor
Video Not Available
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.

Information Not Available
OFFER
Free Quote

We will send you a quote of NetApp All Flash FAS within 24 hours.

Free Quote

We will send you a quote of Pure Storage typically within 24 hours.

Learn more about Null Product
Sample Customers
Acibadem Healthcare Group, AmTrust Financial Services, Citrix Systems, DWD, Mantra GroupNielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
Information Not Available
Top Industries
REVIEWERS
Healthcare Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Retailer
9%
Energy/Utilities Company
8%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm
17%
Healthcare Company
8%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
REVIEWERS
Financial Services Firm
19%
University
11%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Healthcare Company
11%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Financial Services Firm
19%
Healthcare Company
13%
Energy/Utilities Company
7%
Government
6%
No Data Available
Company Size
REVIEWERS
Small Business
11%
Midsize Enterprise
12%
Large Enterprise
77%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business
14%
Midsize Enterprise
21%
Large Enterprise
65%
REVIEWERS
Small Business
15%
Midsize Enterprise
22%
Large Enterprise
63%
VISITORS READING REVIEWS
Small Business
21%
Midsize Enterprise
20%
Large Enterprise
59%
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp All Flash FAS vs. Pure Storage FlashArray and others in All-Flash Storage Arrays.
Download now
305,759 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