We were looking for a FlashArray solution, and at that time we compared the other products in the market. I found that Pure Storage, is a company that focuses only on storage and they are very specialized in this area. I tested the solution, we did a BOC for six months. After we did all the tests for all the scenarios for six months, we were very happy to move to the Pure Storage FlashArray.

We evaluated HP, EMC, and Oracle solutions.

The feature that impressed us with Pure Storage FlashArray was its ease of use and simplicity.

I would rate the pricing of Pure Storage FlashArray a five out of ten. It is expensive but not too much.

I wasn't a decision-maker in the decision-making process. Had I been, I would've considered Nimble All Flash Array. I wouldn't consider anything else. Everything else that I know of in the storage industry is not worth us having insanely low latency for that. That's not our number one concern.

We did evaluate the HPE 3PAR and HPE all-flash systems, because we were a legacy HPE environment, where everything we had was HPE. Beyond that, we didn't really investigate any other vendors. We read some white papers on Dell EMC, but we didn't talk to anybody about them.

Pure was very responsive when we talked to them when we were just investigating on what to buy. They were always the first ones to get back to us and talk to us. They came onsite multiple times to help us with any questions that we had. That level of customer experience was really helpful in making a decision.

We decided to go with Pure Storage more for the Evergreen Storage subscription. With Pure Storage, it was a little bit more to initially get it in, but then you have the Evergreen Storage subscription, which is essentially less than the support on HPE, and that came with the upgrades down the road. HPE subscription support would only cover failures. It didn't have any upgrades built in to it. So, if five years down the road, we went with the HPE system then we would have had to buy whole new storage array to upgrade it. That really played a lot into us wanting to go with Pure Storage. We didn't want to have to do this multiple times.

I also use Dell EMC and XtremIO.

I am also working with Nimble and HPE Alletra. One of the pros of Pure Storage is that it deals with all-flash arrays. It's a lot simpler. The other advantage is the collaboration with Pure.

We completed a PoC with most of the leading brands.

We had existing relationships with vendors who had spinning disk technology. What we weren't getting was the type of flexibility for automation and copy management that all-flash technology offered with the same level of functionality. 

Spinning disk, if you're going to copy things, is zeros and ones on a piece of metal or glass, being moved to another piece of metal or glass. There is physics involved, physical changes. All-flash is largely a metadata-based environment, which means you can make copies of things by changing a few bytes in a table somewhere. 

Pure Storage was chosen because we wanted to move our university's database environment forward in terms of optimization and automation for everyday database administrator activities.

I work with a lot of different storage technologies, including other all-flash solutions, and Pure Storage stands out.

We evaluated Dell, IBM, HP, and Huawei solutions before choosing Pure Storage FlashArray, which was the best (3 years ago!).

We looked at Pure Storage, EMC and HPE. We chose Pure Storage because of its innovation.

We evaluated every solution at the time before we chose Pure Storage Flash Array.

We also looked at Nimble, which is now owned by HPE, and E8, Dell EMC, and NetApp platform.

We looked at Nimble and EMC.

We evaluated Pure and NetApp, and we eventually went with Pure. A positive point with NetApp was the price.

We also evaluated Nimble, EMC, and HPE 3PAR. We ended up going with Pure because of the architecture, speed, and support.

Prior to choosing this solution, we evaluated Dell EMC. We looked at Nimble but they weren't all-flash at the time so they didn't last very long. I am sure that we probably looked at an HP product but I don't think we ever really wanted to do business with them.

We evaluated NetApp, Kaminario, EMC XtremIO, Tintri, and Nutanix.

We used scalability, support, the evergreen model, the cost per terabyte or per gigabyte, and the footprint as the factors for comparison. We also looked at how they are able to provide support globally, not only here in the US but also overseas.

We also considered Hitachi Storage and NetApp. Our decision was ultimately based on two factors: simplicity of the usage and overall performance. We ended up choosing this specific product because we had good support from the application team and we liked the performance coming from the product itself. 

We also considered Hitachi and Dell EMC XtremIO. Pure Storage made the cut because of its PoC performance. 

We evaluated all of the options that were presented to us at the time, and Pure won.

We considered other options. I have used the others, EMC and NetApp, etc. We have looked at all of the platforms, and to see what Pure was able to do within a PoC environment meant that we never turned back our PoC environment. We just bought it and kept running with it. It was an amazing product based on what we had seen out there in the market.

We evaluated EMC (which we already had), Dell, and HP.

One of the advantages of Pure Storage FlashArray to other solutions is the Evergreen Program. The program allows you to never have to purchase storage that you already purchased again. For every terabyte that you purchase, you don't have to purchase it again, they will replace it. As you maintain the solution, even if the old storage becomes at the end of life, it will replace with newer technology as part of the maintenance.

For London and Washington, we had EMC VNX. At the time we were transitioning from the EMC to a mid-tier flash storage, and they didn't have anything in the market. We did look at others. We looked at the Nimble from HPE. When we were looking to purchase, EMC just came out with EMC FlashSystem. We didn't get to the IBM FlashSystem. 

With respect to comparing other solutions, when you put all of the features in a box, leverage them and migrate your application to one of these arrays, it will give you a lot of benefits. Some people have compared benchmark performance tests against other arrays and from my point of view, overall as a whole package when you sum everything up, Pure Storage is the winner.

We also evaluated Dell EMC, 3PAR, Nimble, Tintri, and NetApp.

We did evaluate other solutions, including IBM. The other vendors also had a Flash, but Pure was the best because of the performance. That's why we shortlisted them.

Traditionally we have been buying massive storing arrays from EMC and from Hitachi, but most of them were built for very high tier applications. For VDI with your desktop, you really don't need that so it was easier for us to go for an array that used high-speed devices, providing Hadoop capabilities because the nature of your desktops are literally the same. So we needed to look at newer technology, and this really was one of the first ones to be there, and it was very popular. We did a study on the market and found that VR was one of the leaders in this space, so we brought them in.

We looked at two other solutions but we liked that Pure seemed a bit easier to use. That, and we had recommendations.

We evaluated EMC and HP.  

We were looking at Dell EMC. We were looking at a couple of other vendors, including NetApp. We decided on Pure Storage because of the deduplication and compression that they were advertising.

I have used NetApp, IBM, and EMC XtremIO in the past. We selected Pure because of its reputation. We also considered vSAN, but we ultimately went with Pure because of the ability to do things that vSAN couldn't do at the time. It has since changed. I don't know if that would change my mind about going with Pure, but I don't regret the decision.

The main solutions on our shortlist at the end of the process were NetApp, EMC, and Pure Storage. We ended up buying both NetApp and Pure Storage because we always like to have at least two different vendors involved in our data centers. The decision not to go with EMC was because of the design that they'd done for an all-flash storage solution. It didn't fit with what we were trying to do.

We also evaluated NetApp. It was between NetApp and Pure. The reason we went with Pure Storage wasn't a technical decision, rather, it was just purely cost and the Evergreen maintenance that Pure provides. It just makes it easier when we have a new drive and a new chassis every three years.

We evaluated a second IBM-based storage solution, and after that, Pure was the second one that we looked at. We heard so many good things about it that we leaned towards that way.

We evaluated Tegile, Dell EMC, and Pure Storage. We chose Pure Storage for performance and cost reasons.

We also evaluated EMC and HPE.

We really needed high performance with large amounts of data. We weren't happy with other vendors, and the speed and the volume of data that they could store, handle, and compress.

We needed to choose a new investment because our solution couldn't do data provisioning very quickly. The main solution that the bank normally had was EMC. We looked into HP, IBM, and Pure Storage. But, cost, rate per terabyte, and speed is why we chose Pure Storage. It was a no brainer.

We also looked at NetApp. We chose Pure Storage because we did research and heard good things. 

We researched other products from Kaminario, NetApp SolidFire, Nimble Storage, EMC XtremeIO, and HPE.

We have reviewed other solutions. We looked at a variety of options.

We looked at Pure, NetApp and Nimble. Pure is simple to set up and manage on a day-to-day basis. If you want to upgrade, you can simply call in and they do everything on their side. NetApp, for instance, requires you to be on top of firmware, drivers and updating. You must initiate the upgrades, do the upgrades, follow all the steps. With NetApp, you need a lot of insight to manage it and it's difficult if you have only one person dedicated to that. 

The competing vendors are NetApp, Nimble, and IBM. I don't run into a lot of Dell EMC. Customers pick Pure Storage for performance.

There is no comparison performance-wise. I also install Nimble for storage, and Nimble has flash and all-flash, as well. However, if you are looking at the performance numbers, these Pure Storage is just killing it.

I looked at a half a dozen other products and Pure won over across the board.

We looked at Pure Storage vs Dell EMC, but we thought Pure Storage has newer, better technology developed from the ground up, whereas Dell EMC is a patchwork solution. In addition, the price was more favorable.

We looked into a couple other vendors. I am currently still using one of the vendor. Then, with Pure, we looked into some solutions from Dell EMC or HPE. Pure seemed to be a bit more cost-efficient. It also had better reviews from what we could find online and with references.

Because they do the compression and dedupe on the backside, I have seen better numbers of the Pure Storage box than on the other competitors that I have in my environment.

We initially looked at Pure Storage and Dell EMC Unity. We made the poor decision of going with Unity and eight months later we went with Pure Storage. 

Dell EMC was another vendor we looked at. 

The InfiniBox is more expandable than Pure FlashArray. InfiniBox is more for big data than the Pure product.

The suitability of this solution depends on the customer's environment. Depending on the use case, we propose the right product. Pure Storage is not better than InfiniBox and InfiniBox is not better than Pure Storage.

In comparing products, I would rate Pure FlashArray an eight out of ten, InfiniBox a seven out of ten, Dell EMC products receive a six out of ten, and all of the other all-flash storage systems that I have experience with would be rated a five out of ten.

With PowerMax, there is a big difference in cost when you start adding more features.

The Pure Storage solution has only two active controllers and one passive controller. InfiniBox has three active controllers, and PowerMax can have up to six active storage controllers.

We looked at HP, NetApp, Pure, and EMC. EMC gave us better-performing storage for a better price. 

I have used InfiniBand in the past. We are now looking at building a new data center, and the vendors on our shortlist are Pure and InfiniBand.

I did a POC with three different vendors. Pure won out due to its resiliency, adaptability and the IOS and the feature sets. I was able to pull up all three discs at the same time and it never failed.

We evaluated Hitachi, who was our current vendor. We evaluated Dell EMC for the VMAX and XtremIO. Then, we evaluated Pure Storage. 

We are also a NetApp customer, so we evaluated them. However, we don't run any block storage on NetApp, only files.

We did an evaluation of Dell EMC, Pure Storage, and NetApp.

Our customers will usually also evaluate HPE 3PAR. It is a good competitor because they put emphasis on their infrastructure.

In the end, the customers pick Pure Storage because of me. I don't sell 3PAR because I don't believe in the solution.

We did a vendor search, which included a big payments project across Asia-Pacific for a company that could do data provisioning very quickly. Then, Pure Storage was chosen. 

We also considered Dell EMC, HPE, and IBM. We picked Pure Storage because of its ratio per terabyte and speed.

We were looking for an all-flash solution, and Pure Storage is the best solution right now.

There were several vendors we looked at. We also looked at Nimble, but we did not do at PoC of them.

We just liked the way Pure was pitched to us overall.

Compuverde. But, we like to have data sheets and a more traditional storage than a complex unit.

We looked at Hitachi which we did put in place for some of our dev environments. We also spoke to IBM. We used to use Texas Memory Systems which was bought out by IBM and we reached out to them to see if there was an equivalent and there wasn't. 

We evaluated through technology research: Whiptail, SolidFire, XtremIO and Pure Storage. Ultimately we POC’d XtremIO and Pure Storage.

In addition to this solution, our customer considered another Dell EMC option, as well as one by Hitachi. They chose this because of the simplicity, and the fact that it is all-flash meant that they didn't have to worry about performance. 

We considered Dell EMC, we looked at Nutanix, Cohesity, IBM, HPE. We ran quite a bit of the gamut.

We have a bunch of different storage, like Isilon from Dell EMC, NetApp, HPE 3PAR, Cohesity, and Pure Storage. They're all different functions, and Pure is our warrior, if we need something really fast, really low latency.

We're constantly on the hunt, and we always keep three to four vendors in. Usually, it's been the bigger players, the IBM's, the EMC's. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, but we were looking for something a little different this time around.

We have received good feedback from customers, in general, using Pure Storage compared to other competitors in this space.

We had an employee who used to work for one of the competitors, Dell EMC. After a year of selling Pure Storage with us, Dell EMC offered him a good job to come back. However, after selling Pure Storage, he was unable to go back to selling Dell EMC knowing what Pure Storage is capable of doing.

We did not evaluate other solutions since our partners were using Pure Storage, so we decided to move forward with Pure Storage.

We also looked at IBM and Oracle. We did internal evaluations and we decided to go with Pure Storage. We chose Pure Storage because of the processor's performance. 

We also evaluated Dell EMC and locally attached storage. We chose Pure Storage because it had the best performance of all the products that we tested. Also, its virtualization performance is extremely fast, and it has good ease of use.

When comparing Pure Storage and Dell EMC, I think that Dell EMC has to improve its real performance. Also, Pure Storage is a lot easier to install than the Dell EMC product. 

NetApp is the biggest competitor, then SolidFire, and not so much Dell EMC anymore.

Normally, when we go to compete for a customer, they are looking at all the most important brands. Dell EMC is part of most storage bids. There is NetApp and sometimes we face IBM. In our territory there is Hitachi, which is a great product, but usually it's not on the shortlist. Finally there is HPE. Those are the brands that we normally find we're competing with when we offer Pure.

In the end, so far, haven't lost one deal where we involved Pure. We have won deals against NetApp, which is a great product, we have won deals against Dell EMC - and that is the brand to beat. But when customers compare Dell EMC with Pure, there is no competition. Pure is, by far, better.

We decided to go with the Pure Storage solution because of the business model that they presented to us.

We evaluated Oracle and Hitachi, but Pure Storage had the better pricing.

We looked at everything. In dealing with this, we got mission-specific. It's like different kinds of planes or sailboats: What's the mission? For this high-performance mission, that's what Pure is about.

In the past we've considered EMC, Dell Compellent (Dell EMC), NetApp and of course Pure Storage. We had Dell Compellent in the past and there were some issues with the implication and the way that it used storage. We had firmware trouble with it, which drove us away to seriously consider other brands offerings. We considered EMC, except EMC was expensive. Pure came in at a better price point than EMC and performed better than Compellent.

We evaluated EMC XtremIO and NetApp FAS.

We looked at the other offerings from existing vendors but we took advantage of the free POC and also the special introductory rate.

We evaluated Pure Storage, Nimble, and Dell EMC.

We considered different products from Dell EMC and NetApp. We didn't choose Dell EMC because it was a cost issue. For NetApp, there was an ease of use difference and we felt that Pure Storage was an easier product for our team to use. We chose Pure Storage primarily because of its combination of performance and ease of use. 

Yes, we also looked at EMC, VMAX, and Oracle FS1.

Pure was on our shortlist. There are not a whole lot of other competitors that do what Pure does. They architected their own SAND right from scratch and it's a versatile product.

Darktrace, which we are also using.

Nimble and NetApp.

We only considered Pure Storage. 

My company stays focused with one solution (product) for approximately three years. Then, every three years, we make discussion whether to keep the solution or not.

We actually originally went with a competitor's product, and after about eight months, a lot of wrangling, had them buy it back from us. And then we bought similar Pure Storage product, and it's just been great.

We also looked at Dell EMC and NetApp but Pure Storage performed better. 

We always consider other storage options.