We performed a comparison between Hitachi NAS Platform and IBM FlashSystem 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."Hitachi NAS Platform is very stable."
"The pricing of this solution is good, which is an advantage that positions this product well."
"Simple and extremely reliable."
"The product’s technical support services are good."
"Hitachi is reliable with high availability and solid performance. It performs well regardless of the workload."
"The product has valuable features for data migration."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to handle a high number of users while maintaining both stability and performance."
"The speed of the unit is its best feature. It performs very well."
"This solution is very stable."
"IBM FlashSystem is a powerful effective storage solution. Additionally, it is user-friendly, anyone can use it."
"Virtualization of external storage, while adding cache and speed to the external storage."
"The performance monitoring feature is useful as it can report in 15 minute intervals by hour, day, week, month, or by a custom date range."
"Speed (IOPS/second) – It is most vital for applications that need low latency and high speed for transferring the data."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and performance."
"The solution allows for easy migrations from previous products or vendors via its embedded storage virtualization function."
"Hitachi could be more flexible and have a simpler management interface."
"I would like to see the inclusion of support for cloud-connectivity to providers like AWS."
"The monitoring tool is not well developed."
"Hitachi NAS Platform is expensive."
"I encounter challenges while installing the upgrades for the product."
"Hitachi NAS Platform's pricing could be reduced. It is high compared to other competitors."
"I do not like Hitachi NAS because it's an old-school NAS solution, compared to the other, newer-type solutions such as Isilon from Dell or Qumulo."
"The solution is not able to replicate data in one-to-many scenario."
"The price is very costly."
"IBM FlashSystems is lagging in optimizing storage technologies."
"The only issue my team faced was transferring the data from the old system to IBM FlashSystem, which is an area for improvement in the solution."
"I know they have a flashcopy manager, but it is extra software, an additional license, and some customers don't like to add addition costs to their infrastructure. If IBM could create, or include snapshot management within the GUI, that would really be helpful."
"A big area for improvement is that the data reduction pool feature is not recommended for use in a production environment because it has stability and performance issues."
"The deduplication and compression ratio is not very good. It's not reaching a very high ratio."
"In IBM FlashSystem, data reduction is an area with shortcomings where improvements can be made in the future."
Hitachi NAS Platform is ranked 15th in NAS with 8 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 5th in NAS with 106 reviews. Hitachi NAS Platform is rated 6.8, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Hitachi NAS Platform writes "Good pricing and works well, but it is old-fashioned and should be replaced with something new". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". Hitachi NAS Platform is most compared with NetApp FAS Series, Dell PowerScale (Isilon), Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and Qumulo, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform, Dell Unity XT and NetApp AFF. See our Hitachi NAS Platform vs. IBM FlashSystem report.
See our list of best NAS 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.
