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
7.2
Number of Reviews
222
Ranking in other categories
All-Flash Storage (4th)
Arcserve OneXafe
Average Rating
6.0
Reviews Sentiment
4.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
Backup and Recovery (54th), 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

"With Pure Storage, we don't see any latency or IOPS. It has been a very seamless integration."
"It's a great return on investment, based on the mission."
"We have tons of capacity on it."
"As soon as we introduced our first Pure Storage FlashArray, the first benefit was at least twice the performance increase. Our production databases simply ran twice as fast with no other change."
"The stability and performance are the best things about the solution."
"Pure Storage is an amazing solution."
"Now, with Pure Storage, we have totally eliminated that problem."
"It helps to simplify storage. For most of our customers, when they move to Pure Storage, storage becomes an afterthought."
"The simplicity and the ability to perform small backups are the most effective features for data protection in Arcserve OneXafe."
"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."
"The technical support is good."
"It has awesome scalability. We consume it with storage appliance nodes, then we just plug and play as we need more."
"The speed of the disks removed the bottleneck from our storage."
"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."
"Cost-effective and easy to deploy."
"It helps automate our storage infrastructure."
"The scalability is very effective for our customers."
"The backup features are valuable. I've heard from our backup and data protection people that our clients are very satisfied with the performance in junction with the backup, which they archive on this type of object storage."
 

Cons

"A three wave application or multi-wave application synchronization would be an improvement."
"In the next release I would like to see integration into other third-party player providers like Google."
"Organizations with security concerns that prevent cloud utilization would benefit from a wider range of instruments available for offline operation."
"The scalability of the solution is extremely costly."
"The interface lacks the same level of control as some other arrays I've used."
"We would like to see better troubleshooting aspects. It helps us if we can find out where the problem is. Right now, it's difficult. Sometimes it's difficult to pinpoint the issue. If they had more visibility and more troubleshooting feature built into the tool that would really help."
"I would like to see the NAS add-on component become more fault-tolerant than just a single virtual machine running inside the array. I'm unwilling to use it for that reason."
"Pure Storage FlashArray could improve by being more secure."
"Arcserve OneXafe is not used in many cases in the market that we work in."
"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."
"The price is not the best; it is too high."
"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."
"The processes around installation and upgrade need improvement."
"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."
"The integration with more apps has room for improvement."
"The price is something that NetApp could improve, as with most companies."
"We want to move towards Azure in the cloud. Right now, the system is all physical."
"The user interface of NetApp StorageGRID might need some tweaks, and configuration is maybe a little bit confusing for those who are not so experienced."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"There should be quite a bit of reduction of TCO with just licensing (and stuff) because we run the VM environment off it."
"It's expensive, but you get what you pay for."
"The price of the solution can be a bit expensive. There is an additional fee for support."
"The price is very reasonable when compared to other solutions."
"It is cost-effective because after buying a subscription, they provide a service to upgrade hardware for free. They are providing so many features. When you consider the features provided, it is cost-effective."
"I would prefer that they lower their pricing."
"We lost a lot of customers because we couldn't compete on price with other vendors."
"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."
Information not available
"Creating your own data stores, backups, or storage grids, helps eliminate all these costs of downloading all the data back after you downloaded to the cloud."
"The price is attractive."
"Our licensing is in INR it was around 25 lakhs, which is roughly two million."
"With respect to pricing, it is okay. This product is mid-range."
"It is very cost-effective."
"The pricing is quite flexible and depends on the specific customer requirements. The initial cost is primarily based on the desired capacity, so it's not a fixed price."
"The licensing that the S3 service provides them from a FabricPool standpoint is more attractive than the licensing from AWS or Azure."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
895,151 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
12%
Construction Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
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 Business67
Midsize Enterprise37
Large Enterprise156
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 is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage FlashArray?
The only issue is the pricing. Because we have competition, our customers always take another brand and say they can ...
What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashArray?
Our customers using Dell storage also use competing solutions. Our customers who have Everpure FlashArray may also ha...
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 do you like most about NetApp StorageGRID?
The management portals have most significantly improved our data retrieval times. They've made it much easier to rest...
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...
 

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.
895,151 professionals have used our research since 2012.