No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Arcserve OneXafe vs NetApp StorageGRID comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Everpure FlashArray
Sponsored
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
227
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (3rd)
Arcserve OneXafe
Average Rating
6.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Backup and Recovery (55th), File and Object Storage (24th)
NetApp StorageGRID
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (9th)
 

Featured Reviews

Sowjanya MV - PeerSpot reviewer
Technical Lead at Wipro Limited
Has improved performance for mission-critical workloads and enabled seamless non-disruptive upgrades
The availability is 99.99%, which is the main factor any customer would need because their data should be available whenever they want to access it. This is one main critical thing. It is very easy to upgrade since Pure Storage FlashArray handles it well. Everything is non-disruptive now; previously, there were forklift shifts, but now that is not the case. Pure Storage FlashArray says no to forklift upgrades. Usually hardware requires downtime, but Pure Storage FlashArray has improved their footprint so that they are not asking for downtime; everything is just a non-disruptive activity, which is why customers are more inclined towards Pure Storage FlashArray. Customers want more of the models in their environment due to the performance they are giving, and everything is in one Pure1 Array console where we can view all the models on one page or just an orchestration tool. You don't miss anything; you have replication, notifications about replication, and details about which host groups replication is happening in and if that replication is successful or failed. On a daily basis, our purpose is to create volumes for infrastructure; our daily activities include creating volumes and mapping them to the host, doing any migrations from a VM, clearing the data stores, and carving the volumes to those VMs. One key factor is the data compression with a ratio of 5:1, focusing on space efficiency, inline deduplication, and the compression Pure Storage FlashArray works on; that is a major factor we can suggest to any customer. Analytical capabilities are crucial. Daily, we check the throughput and consumption, and Pure Storage FlashArray provides predictions for one year regarding usage. This prediction helps plan updates well ahead. For support, we just raise a case, and they follow up and get it done. There is also AI readiness, but with the model R2, we don't have much of that AI readiness. For others, we do have AI readiness that predicts capacity based on daily or monthly trends, enabling us to analyze how much space we need or if we need to expand the disk shelf. From an operational point of view, a good feature is that if you accidentally delete a volume, it will be retained in the destroyed state for the next twenty-four hours, which is not the same with any other vendor. I have worked in this storage domain for the past fifteen years, and this option is remarkable, benefiting any L1 or L2 engineer. Additionally, from a compliance perspective, Pure Storage FlashArray has REST APIs enabled. I have not explored automation much, but from a security standpoint, it is strong with encryption data. If you want to automate, you can easily integrate with all clouds and explore Pure Cloud for scheduling workloads, including volume creation. Customers find benefit in Pure Storage FlashArray's single management pane of glass due to the dual controller and active-active setup. If one of the controllers goes down, all workloads automatically shift to the other controller, ensuring their data is safe and accessible at all times. This is a highlighted feature that any customer desires because their data should always be accessible. For SAN workloads, we use Pure Storage FlashArray because for SAN FC fiber channel, we don't use it; we use NetApp for NAS activities. We have clearly split this, so SAN is for mission-critical applications, while network-attached storage handles file systems. This architecture helps us maximize the benefit from Pure Storage FlashArray due to the significant workloads from this giant retail client. From a footprint and energy consumption perspective, you can see energy consumption from the Pure1 storage portal on a daily basis, and it is very compact. The three models we use consume only three units, which is quite low. From a footprint and data center perspective, it doesn't occupy much space. As everything moves to cloud, there are requirements to avoid excess spending on data centers, and Pure Storage FlashArray is efficient in energy consumption and is environmentally friendly.
Sergio Itikawa - PeerSpot reviewer
Software Solutions Architect at SPEData
Has improved data reliability while requiring better pricing and localized support
The most valuable features of Arcserve OneXafe are improving persistent data, which I believe is very important. I use other products too, not only Arcserve OneXafe; we use TrueNAS as well. I have utilized Arcserve OneXafe's data deduplication feature. It helps my storage efficiency significantly. The product satisfaction with this product helps with storage efficiency. Regarding Arcserve OneXafe's immutable object storage helping against ransomware, the call was not clear, and I had difficulty listening to what was discussed. Arcserve OneXafe improves precision of data. I have used Arcserve OneXafe's continuous data protection. This is beneficial for operational continuity because we use it constantly. I have no objections to Arcserve OneXafe technology; I think that is very good.
Michael Lopez - PeerSpot reviewer
Sr Systems Engineer at a outsourcing company with 10,001+ employees
Has reduced storage costs and improved snapshot management for large data workloads
The advanced features of NetApp StorageGRID which our upper management wouldn't agree to use, include the S3 feature. We are heavy into AWS, and my thoughts were to develop a small dev environment or even a POC environment on-prem. That's still up in the air as we continue on. Currently, AI has taken over everything with a focus on AI. The upgrades of NetApp StorageGRID present a challenge. It's a rolling upgrade, node by node. At one point, one node would not upgrade. The positive aspect is that it didn't take down the entire environment. The environment remained functional on two different versions. The scalability of NetApp StorageGRID has been proven as we've expanded twice. We started with six or seven nodes and have grown to 15 nodes. It does take time for synchronization to complete. From what I've seen, it took a couple of months for it all to sync up once adding nodes. However, it was transparent. It captured the addition and performed effectively, all happening in the background, steadily and surely.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"We currently have four Pure Storage FlashArray boxes, and all the storage boxes are on an Evergreen subscription model where we receive the latest hardware and features without any cost in a completely non-intrusive task."
"The most valuable features are extremely low latency, high IOPS with VMware, inline deduplication and compression."
"The initial setup was straightforward in the way that it was a database vacuum storage."
"They have a very good support system, and the GUI is also very intuitive."
"They have really good baked in analytics to show you trends for growth history, so it does help with future planning for data growth."
"Pure gives us better compression, it's easier to manage, a lot less hands-on, and the biggest selling point for me was the replacement of the hardware, the controllers, without any major expense to the clinic."
"It simplifies building out the storage."
"It is all-flash. This makes it a lot faster than the rest of what we have, as it is able to drive high I/O loads, which is big for us."
"The most valuable features of Arcserve OneXafe are improving persistent data, which I believe is very important, and I have utilized Arcserve OneXafe's data deduplication feature, which helps my storage efficiency significantly."
"The simplicity and the ability to perform small backups are the most effective features for data protection in Arcserve OneXafe."
"Overall, this is a good product and I recommend it."
"The technical support team is reliable and responsive."
"For StorageGRID, the duplication and interface are good and the manageability of StorageGRID is pretty good."
"It has enabled us to save money on storage costs. We removed our tape library."
"The management portals have most significantly improved our data retrieval times. They've made it much easier to restore data compared to our previous methods."
"The implementation with NetApp went smoothly. It is a 'setup and forget' type of appliance."
"We definitely saw the benefits of NetApp StorageGRID immediately as our growth of snapshots and our internal customers, including Kelly Blue Book, AutoTrader, and HomeNet, required long-term snapshots, and we saw the results of having NetApp StorageGRID saving us on SSD space."
"It improves our operational efficiency."
 

Cons

"The main disadvantage of Pure Storage FlashArray is the price."
"It goes at about 95 percent, so we have had some performance issues. It is hard to clear them."
"There's always an opportunity for new feature functionality."
"I would like to see them develop the ability to integrate with more AWS services."
"Everpure FlashArray can be improved as the pricing is expensive, but you do get what you pay for; you are paying a premium for better service, better warranties, less downtime, and other things, so I do not know that a lower price would work out because you probably would not have that high of quality for those things."
"The backend of this solution utilizes an Active/Passive architecture, rather than an Active/Active architecture, which is a disadvantage, when compared to some of its competitors. Its storage capacity should be expanded in the next release."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve by being more secure."
"We would like to integrate it more with our backup solutions."
"The price is not the best; it is too high."
"The price is not the best; it is too high. It's not the best solution in terms of price, although the solution itself is good."
"Arcserve OneXafe is not used in many cases in the market that we work in."
"The product's continual innovation and enhancement in integration capabilities with other NetApp solutions could be better."
"The price is something that NetApp could improve, as with most companies."
"I would like to see them integrate more with the monitoring platforms. It is a bit difficult to get automated monitoring of the system."
"The upgrades of NetApp StorageGRID present challenges. It's a rolling upgrade, node by node. At one point, one node would not upgrade."
"They can enhance the deduplication and compression features, which are crucial for saving more disk space. It's not at the same level as the NetApp filer or the real NetApp cluster that runs itself on its architecture, as StorageGRID is a software solution that emulates a RAID level."
"Beyond the initial setup, this product is a little bit difficult to configure."
"The integration with more apps has room for improvement."
"The only real issue that we have run into is, when we are cloning, we cannot do a thin provision clone, it has to be a full clone."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"We do not incur additional costs beyond the licensing fee."
"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."
"Dell and Pure Storage offer competitive pricing, but Pure Storage might have a slight advantage."
"Our costs are around $100,000."
"Because the price is a bit higher than other products, the data reduction equalizes the price with amount of the data reduction."
"I would rate the pricing of Pure Storage FlashArray a five out of ten. It is expensive but not too much."
"We feel that the pricing is fair and the licensing process was easy for both."
"Price per terabyte is substantially higher than their competition. We would like to see it drop."
Information not available
"We chose NetApp because of price and performance."
"NetApp is not known for being the cheapest storage option on the market. Almost all of the other storage options we looked at were less expensive than StorageGRID. The price is one thing to criticize, which is what we hear internally and from customers as well. They find the cost of the terabytes in this class of storage a little bit higher than expected."
"We pay for a license annually."
"I rate the product pricing around five out of ten—it's negotiable, depending on the circumstances."
"The price is attractive."
"The pricing of StorageGRID falls within the typical range for enterprise-grade solutions and is comparable to other vendors such as Dell, NetApp, and Pure Storage."
"With respect to pricing, it is okay. This product is mid-range."
"We save money on storage costs from this solution since it allows us to have a source of revenue from customers consuming the service."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
896,942 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Construction Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
No data available
Financial Services Firm
20%
Manufacturing Company
14%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business69
Midsize Enterprise37
Large Enterprise157
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise4
Large Enterprise11
 

Questions from the Community

Which should I choose: HPE 3PAR StoreServ or Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform F Series?
Both are great platforms, but if you are considering all flash solutions, I would recommend you to consider Pure Stor...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
I do not have any improvements at the moment; I like how it is. I have nothing to add about needed improvements.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Arcserve OneXafe?
Regarding pricing and setup cost, my client said all the options are very expensive. Price is always a key point for ...
What needs improvement with Arcserve OneXafe?
There are areas that could be improved. We use other technologies for persistent data as well. So we depend on the op...
What is your primary use case for Arcserve OneXafe?
The main use case for this product is that I use a backup repository for persistent data. I use it exclusively for th...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NetApp StorageGRID?
As an administrator, I was not involved in the pricing of NetApp StorageGRID. From what I understood, it was cheaper ...
What needs improvement with NetApp StorageGRID?
The upgrades of NetApp StorageGRID present challenges. It's a rolling upgrade, node by node. At one point, one node w...
What is your primary use case for NetApp StorageGRID?
It started back when we first got NetApp StorageGRID at Cox Automotive, approximately seven years ago. We first got i...
 

Also Known As

Pure Storage FlashArray
StorageCraft OneBlox
Storage GRID
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Nielsen, Lamar Advertising, LinkedIn, Betfair, UT-Dallas
Sonic, Amazon, Kawasaki, Callaway, Drake University, Mazda, Thales, California Highway Patrol, Guggenheim, Bruker, NASA, Oregon.gov
ASE, DARZ GmbH
Find out what your peers are saying about Arcserve OneXafe vs. NetApp StorageGRID and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
896,942 professionals have used our research since 2012.