We did evaluate Dell PowerMax and NetApp AFF.

The reason why we picked Pure was that it was reasonably priced and had better upgrade capacity, as well as better scale-out capacity. It also had better Oracle tools, especially the CAT tool.

Before choosing this solution, we evaluated solutions from HP, IBM, and Dell EMC.

We looked at EMC, Pure, and IBM. The Pure interface was much better, which is why we chose it. The cost was also better in most cases.

The vendors at the time would have been Dell EMC and Hitachi.

Pure Storage is better than IBM, Dell, and other solutions because it makes a good application and keeps its promise. Pure Storage has stability and works very fast. They keep their promise for what they build. For example, if they promise one to four with an application, they do that. Even if they can't do that, they put in an extra hard drive to keep their promise, and it's a free hard drive. The most important position of Pure depends on whether you are talking about net space or the use space.

Of course, Dell and IBM have good solutions, but that depends on what storage level we are talking about, such as SIP or NAS.

If the customer needs a certain size, say about 500 terabytes of usable space, Pure is not a good solution because it will be expensive. IBM could be a better choice.

I haven't compared the solution to other options. 

We also evaluated Hitachi, Nimble, and EMC. We went with Pure because they have the best pitch.

EMC still has good products so they were still there. We were looking at adding additional space to the VNX. And then for general purpose, we did look at some stuff through Cohesity, but we needed more performance-oriented space. So that's why we went with Pure.

We looked at IBM and NetAPP before choosing Pure FlashArray.

We considered IBM and Dell EMC for our storage solution.