Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

IBM FlashSystem vs NetApp AFF comparison

Sponsored
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Sep 18, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

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

Customer Service

No sentiment score available
Pure FlashArray X NVMe's customer service is praised for responsiveness and knowledge, but some users report challenges with communication and coordination.
Sentiment score
7.1
IBM FlashSystem's customer service is praised for responsiveness and expertise, but support quality varies by region with some needing improvement.
Sentiment score
8.1
NetApp AFF support is praised for responsiveness and expertise, with some users noting escalation improves resolution satisfaction.
Rather than Pure just saying it's Cisco's problem, call Cisco, they actually got on with a TAC engineer and talked us through it.
The guys in South Africa, and they're very, very good.
What I like about Pure Storage technical support is that when you enter a request, you immediately get a response.
 

Room For Improvement

Sentiment score
5.2
Users seek improved pricing, UI, analytics, replication, deduplication, AI features, and better backup, while expressing concerns over costs.
Sentiment score
5.0
IBM FlashSystem needs improvements in installation, speed, security, integration, support, cost, scalability, storage features, data reduction, and deduplication.
Sentiment score
5.5
NetApp AFF users seek reduced costs, streamlined setup, enhanced performance, better integration, improved support, and user-friendly management tools.
I want to see Pure Storage not only be for fast storage, but I want to see it be for the entire data center.
We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency.
We would like to see VNC integration or be able to use Pure Storage with VNC.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.6
Pure FlashArray X NVMe is highly scalable, offering easy expansion and reliable performance with some customization and cost limitations.
Sentiment score
7.3
IBM FlashSystem is highly scalable, supporting various storage options, and easily upgraded without hardware replacement, suitable for diverse enterprises.
Sentiment score
7.7
NetApp AFF excels in scalability, offering flexible storage expansion and performance, despite some cost concerns, ideal for growing environments.
We also have an X90R2 with two petabytes of NVMe in it which fits in about six rack units of space.
We are able to push the X70 way past our current needs from a throughput and IOPS perspective – without any degradation on latency.
We have also performed storage and controller upgrades live with zero downtime.
 

Setup Cost

Sentiment score
7.8
Enterprise buyers view Pure FlashArray X NVMe pricing as a mixed experience, balancing high costs with valuable long-term investment.
Sentiment score
5.5
IBM FlashSystem offers competitive pricing with various models and discounts, often seen as providing good overall value.
Sentiment score
7.8
NetApp AFF is costly but valued for efficiency and performance, offering savings and competitive pricing against Oracle.
While the prices may be higher than those of other vendors, we see it as a market leader with benefits.
The support can be a bit pricey, but the solution is more cost-effective than anything else out there.
We pay approximately $50,000 USD per year in licensing fees.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
8.4
Pure FlashArray X NVMe is highly stable and reliable, with users experiencing minimal issues and rating it highly.
Sentiment score
7.6
IBM FlashSystem is highly praised for its stability, high performance, and minimal issues, especially the reliable 9000 series.
Sentiment score
8.5
NetApp AFF is lauded for its dependable, stable performance, with minimal downtime and quickly resolved minor issues.
We have gone through multiple software upgrades, as well as completely non-disruptive hardware upgrades.
During the eight years, there have been no problems such as hardware failure or stopping.
There was one minor issue when the M70s were first released – but they have been 100% stable since.
 

Valuable Features

Sentiment score
8.1
Pure FlashArray X NVMe excels in performance, reliability, and scalability, offering advanced features for efficient storage and management.
Sentiment score
8.3
IBM FlashSystem is valued for its high performance, ease of use, flexibility, reliability, scalability, and powerful storage features.
Sentiment score
8.1
NetApp AFF offers high-speed performance, seamless upgrades, and efficient data management, enhancing scalability and operational efficiency.
Going from a legacy vendor to Pure Storage, we saw reductions in MRP reports previously running at six hours going to 30 minutes.
The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance.
The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use.
 

Categories and Ranking

Pure FlashArray X NVMe
Sponsored
Ranking in All-Flash Storage
16th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays (7th)
IBM FlashSystem
Ranking in All-Flash Storage
6th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
107
Ranking in other categories
NAS (4th), Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) (3rd)
NetApp AFF
Ranking in All-Flash Storage
2nd
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
320
Ranking in other categories
NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays (2nd)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the All-Flash Storage category, the mindshare of Pure FlashArray X NVMe is 0.8%, down from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM FlashSystem is 7.3%, up from 6.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of NetApp AFF is 10.6%, up from 9.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
All-Flash Storage
 

Featured Reviews

Paul Pearson - PeerSpot reviewer
Works well, is easy to implement, and has upgrade analysis capabilities
We love the product. Pure Storage works really well. The CAT tool and also the ability to upgrade the unit's place grades are great. It allows for in-place control or upgrades. It's a very simple implementation. They have a good tool to analyze upgrades. The stability is good. Technical support has been excellent.
Abdul-Salam - PeerSpot reviewer
An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression
Depending on your use case, I recommend looking at models that include compression and deduplication features to ensure the required level of UI performance. We dedicate the solution to one particular application so we do not face performance issues. An environment with a shared storage array across multiple applications or databases may need high performance storage, more memory, and powerful controllers. I rate the solution a seven out of ten.
Anna Sofo - PeerSpot reviewer
Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency
I like NetApp AFF's deduplication. The solution's AutoSupport feature is efficient and effective because customers are notified of potential issues before they experience problems with NetApp. The support is sold based on metro clusters, so they guarantee the client's business continuity. NetApp has an Active IQ app that allows you to get information on your smartphone.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which All-Flash Storage solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user186357 - PeerSpot reviewer
Jan 28, 2015
NetApp vs. XtremIO
Is there another storage platform as feature rich as NetApp FAS? I think it is fair to say that NetApp FAS running Clustered Data ONTAP is a very feature rich platform – the move to the clustered version of ONTAP has brought many next-generation features including Scale-out and Non-disruptive…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
Computer Software Company
16%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Government
7%
Educational Organization
62%
Computer Software Company
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
4%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Pure FlashArray X NVMe?
Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps to improve our processing speed. It is user-friendly and easy to use.
What needs improvement with Pure FlashArray X NVMe?
After implementation, there are limitations, such as the number of paths, file systems, and replication options. It f...
What is the Biggest Difference Between Dell EMC Unity and NetApp AFF?
Well, Is one thing NetApp Storage has vs other brand is the mix of protocol CIFS with NFS booth working together in t...
What is the Biggest Difference Between Dell EMC Unity and NetApp AFF?
This question is very dependent on your requirements. Both are among the best in the field. Of course, the intended c...
What is the Biggest Difference Between Dell EMC Unity and NetApp AFF?
The answer depends on your needs and budget. If you want high performance (who doesn't) or let's say the latency matt...
 

Also Known As

Pure FlashArray//X NVMe, Pure FlashArray//X, FlashArray//X
IBM Storwize
NetApp All Flash FAS, NetApp AFF, NetApp Flash FAS
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Fremont Bank, Judson ISD, The Nielsen Company
Celero, Friedhelm Loh Group, Clarks, Mingkang Natregro Health Food Group, Sofia, Etisalat Fights Fraud, UF Health Shands Hospital, Generali, Elecon Engineering Company Limited, Ventiv , Technology, CPFL Energia, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., SciQuest, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, Paddy Power, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Interconnect Services, Severstal IP-Only AB, PVU Group GmbH
DreamWorks Animation, FICO, Yahoo! Japan
Find out what your peers are saying about IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp AFF and other solutions. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.