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."With Pure Storage, we don't see any latency or IOPS. It has been a very seamless integration."
"The stability and performance are the best things about the solution."
"Because of the encryption, we have different storage and the encryption can go over both."
"NVMe data storage platform that's easy to set up and easy to use. It's stable, with a lower response time, and quick technical support."
"The deduplication in the array combined with its snap technologies allows the product to be remotely/manually controlled or scheduled."
"The most valuable features are extremely low latency, high IOPS with VMware, inline deduplication and compression."
"We are very happy with the data deduplication and compression ratio that we have on the platform."
"It is easy to manage. You don't have to have the same people who used to manage the Dell EMC arrays because the solution is more intuitive."
"It's very easy to manage."
"We are a 100% satisfied with the stability of the solution."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and performance."
"No queuing and high ops, speed, and performance."
"Flash disk with Easy Tier option"
"The installation is nice and easy."
"This solution is very stable."
"The solution allows for easy migrations from previous products or vendors via its embedded storage virtualization function."
"The initial setup was so straightforward. It was well-documented."
"The strong point is that our clients like this are RadLV (Radiology Low-Value). They also use SnapMirror and MetroCluster."
"NetApp FAS Series is simple to set up."
"One of the most valuable features offered is double-parity RAID, which guarantees that your data will stay intact. We're also able to provision storage and monitor which ones are really consuming storage."
"Better performance and lower costs."
"It has a very good implementation of the Active Directory services, so implementation into a Windows network is easy."
"It's an easy product to use that is stable and has good performance."
"The migration of the volume on the cluster is very useful and easy to use."
"Larger capacity and more storage ports would be the two things I'd like to see."
"I recognize it's a difficult challenge, but I would like to see them make the pricing more reasonable."
"The number of Filesystems is limited, which it is not on the EMC VNX."
"The system has dual controllers but does not have a high level of resiliency built-in."
"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."
"I can't see where they can make anything better, unless, of course, they lower their prices even more."
"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."
"I would like to see more cloud integration."
"I have looked at a few pages of a report I download and I saw a graph there regarding software-defined vendors. IBM is not in a good position on this graph. I know that they are working very hard on this, to make it much better and to get to a level where it's not only hardware but also software to provide a complete solution."
"The initial setup is complex."
"I would like to see bigger modules."
"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."
"The GUI for monitoring performance metrics could provide better visibility. For example, it doesn't let me segregate the IOPS per volume."
"AHV is Acropolis Hypervisor – A relatively new Hypervisor, robust and stable as VMware vSphere, has built-in advanced analytics and powerful operations, Self Service Portal and components for DevOps included, managed by a single pane of glass (Prism) via HTML5 and it is free of charge – That is why Nutanix is so advanced and revolutionary."
"The generic functionality of IBM FlashSystem, IBM always dismisses using file share or sharing protocols inside their storage hardware, and they only focus on the block-level storage."
"We use some open-source tools for monitoring, such as Grafana and it should be bundled along with IBM FlashSystem."
"The WAFL is slow."
"It may need more flexibility to fight with other competing arrays."
"For long term partnership in Myanmar, the local warehouse should be built in Myanmar that's something I'd like to see. We have some issues with supply so there is sometimes a delay in getting the hardware."
"It's not a cheap system. It is very expensive. The pricing has been ridiculous every time that we had to renew the support."
"Cluster mode needs to be more ubiquitous."
"The solution's configuration is not flexible."
"Its operating system is very cumbersome. However, after you set it up, it runs pretty smoothly. Its file system is not very dynamic. It is very static."
"The AutoSupport could be improved to be more proactive in certain cases."
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 2nd in NAS with 98 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp FAS Series writes "Offers good performance and ". 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.