The price of the solution can be a bit expensive. There is an additional fee for support.

We have 16 or 18 arrays. We like to do the three-year support model so that we get Evergreen and therefore, we get free upgrades. We pay around more than 1.5 million dollars. 

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I am using the latest version of the solution and it is deployed on-premises. The tool is easy to implement and does not require much training. Moreover, it has good support.

We just barely bought our Pure Storage, so we haven't been able to use Evergreen Storage subscription at all yet. However, it's a really cool concept. As long as we maintain our subscription, we will get new controllers every three years and really never have a forklift upgrade like we currently are doing. Just that future-proofing is an ease off of my mind to know that I won't have to do what I'm doing right now again.

It's a costly solution. It is not cheap. 

There is no subscription fee. There is just one initial fee.

There are true cost savings with this product. If you're an OPEX-adverse organization the cost per period is just really low. We were paying $90,000 per period with IBM and we have 13 periods. We went to Pure Storage and now we're doing $38,000 per period - and yet we have the highest performance here. Pure Storage will give you savings.

The price is reasonable. We don’t pay to license any of the features. I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

The price of Pure Storage FlashArray is expensive.

It's not cheap. It's priced higher than the market.

The pricing is okay. It's somewhere in the middle. I'd rate it five out of ten overall. 

We have customers who use a three-year or five-year license. We also have customers who use Evergreen.

Pure Storage FlashArray is expensive.

The cost was initially high, but once more people were using it, the costs came down. This was because the University was reselling it to other departments.

You can pay extra for Evergreen support, which gives you free upgrades when new features are introduced.

Pure is typically more expensive than everyone else. You get what you pay for, but I have lost deals to similar solutions because of pricing.

They include everything, and that's another positive about Pure Storage. They aren't trying to nickel and dime their customers for different features. It is all included in one price. The license is by capacity, and the price depends on the capacity and the discount we're getting from the vendor. You get the SKU of the physical appliance, support, and maintenance, and that's it. You're licensed for whatever feature they offer. It is all rolled up into the price of the appliance.

In terms of other contemporary arrays, Pure is something you need to have a use case for. It isn't priced for you to just go buy one off-the-shelf. It isn't a casual purchase. If you have an appropriate use case though--heavy lift Oracle Databases, any type of virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI), or workloads that just really need low latency and high throughput--you should consider all-flash at least and probably Pure Storage. For example, we are starting to use our second array for high performance computing, primarily machine learning, and for that sort of research analytics and heavy math computation you really need all-flash. 

The cost of the array includes the cost of the basic functionality. The Evergreen support includes free upgrades. This is not an inexpensive solution, you need to understand the value of your data before you buy it.

Pure Storage has not helped us to reduce our licensing costs.

It's expensive but compared to other solutions, you get what you pay for. 

Once you purchase Pure Storage FlashArray it is all-inclusive, you receive all the licenses needed.

The price of the Pure Storage Flash Array is too high and there needs to be more contact clarity. We went with the Evergreen plan and I don't have clarity on what am I supposed to pay each year or every three years. There was not much contract clarity.

We consume it as a service, and that's actually something we really like, or at least I really like from the technical perspective. That's because it means there is no hassle when we need to upgrade arrays to add capacity. We just interact directly with technical counterparts, and we say, "Hey, we're filling up," and they say, "All right, here's another data pack." They ship it in, and we install it. So, the as-a-service model has worked very well. Given the outstanding data reduction rates, it has improved our profitability because we're selling allocated volumes as part of the cloud service or recovering those costs from our tenants. It is very efficient, but that has offset the premium price. It started out that way, but over time, as we've added capacity, the price per gig has gone down a lot because we have a lot of it.

Cost-wise, I imagine that the product's price would probably give you a nosebleed if you were a younger company.

The solution is expensive.

It is a more expensive solution, but it is worth it. You are getting what you paid for. I never have to worry about its performance or if it is the root cause of an issue.

It is not the cheapest one out there. We're paying yearly, but I'm not 100% sure.

Our costs are around $100,000.

It has a flexible, pay-as-you-go option.The primary drawback is the cost, which can be prohibitive for small configurations, but this is the only major downside.

The licensing cost is close to zero. Every new function or functionality is included when paying the annual maintenance. Our customers value it because the maintenance is always the same regardless of whether it's the first year, the seventh or the tenth year. Additionally, the products use the same operative system with new capabilities, like ransomware and safe mode. Another thing that is quite nice to have is outstanding performance. They can provide a lot of performance, so there is not a lot of difference. Still, efficiency is something customers value because the compression can be up to twice of the second competitor. I rate licensing costs a ten out of ten.

You could say that the licensing cost involves a one-time fee, at which point support can be renewed in what I believe to be three-year blocks. As long as a person keeps his support current he can upgrade to the newer version of the array, which can be done once every three to four years.

The solution could be cheaper.

We do not incur additional costs beyond the licensing fee. Something that's really awesome about the solution is that the cost is all-inclusive of the features. There is no need to pay for replication or for any additional features. A person is entitled to employ these when they come out.

Pure has been flexible with us on the pricing models.

With Pure Storage, we buy the array and then all the features can be enabled on that.

It is more expensive than Nimble. The price is likely double Nimble's.

You do not have to pay for any extra features or add-ons. Everything is included. 

When we bought the unit, we bought per capacity. So, the licensing is per capacity, and the only thing that we have to buy every year or every three years is maintenance. Included in that maintenance is the upgrade of the controllers every three years at no cost to us.

There is an annual or perpetual license required for this solution.

While it is my understanding that the solution is a bit expensive from a financial point of view, I don't know the exact costs.

The price, in general, is around $100,000, however, I know it costs more. I don't have the details anymore. I know it was much more than HP 3PAR and Dell Storage Center or DataCore. 

We have a five-year contract. We would need to renew it in two years or so.

The price is very reasonable when compared to other solutions.

There are no licensing fees aside from the support. The support plan is simple and quite easy to understand, and it covers issues such as hardware failures.

My organization has a yearly license, but I believe that Pure Storage FlashArray has capacity-based licenses as well. I'm definitely happy with the pricing.

Pure Storage has not helped to reduce our HANA licensing costs.

Like anything, when you are paying more than you were paying for the storage space, you'd like the cost to be less. If they could get into the spinning disk kind of cost, that would be it. But what you are getting for it, you are definitely seeing a good ROI.

We feel that the pricing is fair and the licensing process was easy for both.

The price of Pure Storage FlashArray could always improve. They are still more expensive than some alternative offerings. Cost is always a concern and when there is a battle they tend to be more expensive.

There are no licenses outside of the storage. When you buy the solution, you receive all the software capabilities and license with the box.

You do have a license that is required and you also have to pay for support.

The license we have is not a monthly subscription model.

The price of this solution is high.

I am not sure what the costs for the solution are but it is embedded in the solution support.

We have a package deal on the solution because we bought it through a software vendor, so they packaged it with their solution. I don't know what the individual costs would be for the Pure side of it.

It was a little costly. The price was ultimately higher than both of the other solutions that we evaluated. I'd say that's the only downside.

You are buying a premium product, and it is worth it.

Pricing is very competitive, and it's better than other competitors, as we've looked at some of the other competitors on the market. Pure, for the quality of gear we're getting versus the price, is a good value for us.

There's no additional licenses needed, as everything is included.

The pricing is reasonable.

They're okay with the pricing. They're expensive compared to some of the hyperscalers today. When it comes to a private cloud, enterprise-class, where we're looking at highly encrypted, high-performance, highly reliable systems. I might not go with Pure. If I can go with the data center class, I can go with Pure Storage. For enterprise-class, I would still lean back to Hitachi or Dell.

The price of the solution is not expensive.

We have an Evergreen Storage subscription, which I think is a great feature.

It is an excellent choice, if you can afford it.

I'm good with the licensing. Of course, pricing can always be less. That's standard business. It's actually not a bad pricing model, considering I don't have to rip-and-replace. That's huge for me.

The price seems fair according to the market. We analyzed multiple All-Flash Arrays (AFA) in the market, but Pure came at the top in many areas.

The price was slightly higher than others, but competitive, if you consider all the other features that you get from it. I love the Evergreen model to replace any parts after three years with a newer part as part of your support contract. The licensing is based on your capacity.

Price is always an area that could be improved.

There are no licensing fees or other costs.

With the pricing, they have, it is pretty competitive to spinning disk.

I have had a couple of customers who have complained about the cost. It can be a little more expensive than some of the other platforms. After it has been installed, I have never had a customer say, "I wish we wouldn't have spent all that extra money." They have always been happy with the product after it has been installed. They might be on the fence about it because of the price, but everybody who I have ever seen install it, they are always happy with it.

The solution could be cheaper.

There should be quite a bit of reduction of TCO with just licensing (and stuff) because we run the VM environment off it.

I definitely like the licensing model. It's a lot better than being "piecemealed" as a customer. I've been extremely happy. Cost-wise, it's been very effective. We're a nonprofit-based organization, so pricing is at the forefront of every conversation we have, and it's been a good marriage between the technical capability of the product, the software that we get, the service and support that we get. From a price standpoint, it's been very effective.

I think that the pricing is less expensive compared to other standard products in the market today. Even the support contract and maintenance services cost less when compared to market-leading products like EMC.  

Our licensing is on a yearly basis. So, every year, we renew. We could do a three-year contract, but right now, we only do a one-year.

We would like them to improve the pricing, so we could put them to use some more product, like backup or long-term storage. In the future, if the price goes down, then we could buy different types of products.

Pure Storage FlashArray's pricing is very competitive. 

It could always be lower, but it's okay.

The pricing of the product is very competitive to others in the market for Flash and NVMe storage. That covers the cost of hardware and support.

The pricing is okay. We pay to license on a yearly basis. It's just a standard fee with no extra costs. 

The best features come included without any additional cost.

We have an Evergreen Storage subscription. We like it a lot. We recently upgraded from the M-series to the X-series FlashArrays. We used the Evergreen Storage solution and expanded our footprint.

Price is about the only thing that's wrong with it. A little bit better pricing would be great. The client environment for a non-profit 501C3 organization makes it much harder for us to come up with the dollars and to cover the increased cost of hardware support, but we do like the way the product runs. It's perfect for us.

The price is too high.

Because the price is a bit higher than other products, the data reduction equalizes the price with amount of the data reduction.

The cost has room for improvement.

Our Evergreen Storage subscription is supposed to be good when we go to upgrade.

It's cost-effective when we replace it and has rich improvements with low effort from the customer side.

Pure Storage doesn't have licenses. You buy the hardware, and all the software is included. The price of FlashArray is very competitive.

Our licensing is on a yearly basis. They have a standardized fee; it's been the same price for 10 years straight. I am happy with the price — I think it's good.

It is cheaper than NetApp.

In the beginning, we saw that the price is not very good. When we made some compilations about the deduplication and the compression and what the equipment does, including the differentiation of upper management of the storage, the price was not so bad. However, in the beginning, the price was very difficult to justify.

The pricing is rather costly when compared to similar solutions.

There are no fees for licensing. The hardware is paid for only once.

In comparison to the competitors, Pure is very price-competitive for the future functionality that it provides.

There are a lot of companies that give a solid performance and a lot of places you can get flash. The pricing wasn't that much different, It's really the simplicity that makes a difference. If the data starts flowing too fast, it slows things down and does it later. Those features are the winners for us.

Pure Storage is all-flash, so this sometimes tends to make it a bit more expensive in the beginning. Once a customer gets a demo and starts using Pure Storage, sees it working with its ease of use, stability, and performance, this encourages them into purchasing the product. 

It is light years beyond anything else with the same price point.

Price per terabyte is substantially higher than their competition. We would like to see it drop.

It was less expensive than some of the alternatives. It's not as though it was a premium price to get that kind of quality. It's a very competitive product from a price perspective, but I would say better than many in terms of performance and service.

It's expensive, but it's worth it.

We purchased a license to use this solution and we pay for the storage ourselves.

The Evergreen Storage subscription is great, because then I get new controllers every three years.

The cost of the storage needs improvement.

The pricing of Pure Storage is all-inclusive. It is very fair, and very easy. In comparison, Dell EMC has licensing that needs to be added if you wan to work in a complex environment or in specific functionalities. 

The pricing is an issue. However, being all-flash, it will always be sort of expensive.

It's expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Pure Storage is a good price and it's a solid product for the price point. Only two or three times over the last 5 years have we had Pure flash drives die to a point where they had to be replaced, so the reliability is also very good.

Everything is included, so there is very simple licensing. F

All the software is included in the hardware at no additional cost , unlike some of the other storage vendors who charge for certain features such as encryption, replication, etc.

The cost has room for improvement.

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.

I was not involved with the licensing of this solution.

Pure Storage is expensive. It comes with features, so you get what you pay for. It is expensive compared to our old storage systems, but from the amount of human effort that you have to pay to babysit a storage system, it reduces that. I don't know if the TCO is reduced, but it's not a concern for us.

The guaranty that Pure Storage provides when you purchase it doesn't meet the overall capacity needs to provide extra storage, if needed. Thus, it is not meeting our expectations.

Speak to an account manager and get the right deal.

There are some additional costs.

I don't know the exact cost but it's around $1,000.

The licensing is $100,000.

There is always room for negotiation.

I would prefer that they lower their pricing.

Its price is almost double than any other flash storage solution.

All storage is expensive so any price improvement would help.