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

Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array vs VAST Data 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

Sentiment score
7.8
Pure FlashArray X NVMe's customer service is praised for responsiveness and knowledge, but some users report challenges with communication and coordination.
No sentiment score available
Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array is praised for its responsive service, knowledgeable support, quick resolutions, and professional customer interactions.
No sentiment score available
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.
No sentiment score available
Users suggest Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array improve support, documentation, firmware updates, system integration, performance metrics, troubleshooting, and scalability.
No sentiment score available
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.
No sentiment score available
Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array is praised for its scalability, high performance, and seamless expansion without impacting speed or reliability.
No sentiment score available
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.
No sentiment score available
Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array delivers cost-effective, high-performance storage with low latency and scalability for enterprise applications.
No sentiment score available
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.
No sentiment score available
Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array is praised for its exceptional stability, reliable operation, and seamless integration into existing infrastructures.
No sentiment score available
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.
No sentiment score available
Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array is praised for performance, scalability, low latency, easy deployment, IOPS increase, and efficient storage capabilities.
No sentiment score available
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
Ranking in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays
7th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
32
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Pavilion HyperParallel Flas...
Ranking in All-Flash Storage
35th
Ranking in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays
21st
Average Rating
9.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
VAST Data
Ranking in All-Flash Storage
21st
Ranking in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays
8th
Average Rating
10.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
File and Object Storage (8th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays category, the mindshare of Pure FlashArray X NVMe is 2.5%, down from 3.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array is 0.4%, down from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of VAST Data is 5.2%, down from 7.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays
 

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.
reviewer1534224 - PeerSpot reviewer
Good support, improves performance, scales well, and boosts team efficiency
For us, in terms of what is very important, is keeping pace with the evolution of the new standards. For example, as PCI Express 4.0 becomes more ubiquitous, moving into PCI Express 5 is important. Having an architecture that can truly utilize 200-gig or maybe 400-gig networking, or having storage densities in line with what we would expect in a Gen 4, Gen 5 PCI Express, are things that as they come available, I hope that the vendor is looking at that going into the future. We need this because we're really at the point where our workloads are about to explode outwards. I would like to see the management layer improved. HyperOS 3.0 is excellent, and this is important because one of the things that we looked at in the beginning, before HyperOS 3.0 had been released, was that this is an excellent technology and it's very versatile, but it would be great if we could run certain things on this box. It would be helpful if there were more ways to consume the APIs or if there were some ways to get into the hardware, get into the functionality of the system programmatically, or have flexibility where, for example, we just need to do quick namespaces, or something similar. We don't want to deploy an entire secondary storage layer on top of this. Rather, we just want to run something quick. Having a containerized system or having some sort of first-party support for basic storage functionality, or basic extensibility would be excellent for us. In many ways, these boxes are very malleable. It's a blank slate, but having a little more in terms of, if you want more directed use of it, having some way to really get at that, would be helpful.
Alan Powers - PeerSpot reviewer
Stability-wise, a device that has been up and running for years
The failover capability and resiliency are some of the solution's valuable features. The big thing is resilience because it has richer coding in it, so multiple devices can't fail. Also, one can still access a number of CBoxes that can allow one to access their file system. Once a device fails, it fails the transparency of the end-user, and it just starts using another resource. The encryption capability, the snapshots, along with a whole bunch of features make the tool valuable. VAST Data keeps adding more and more features all the time.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays solutions are best for your needs.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Computer Software Company
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Government
6%
No data available
Computer Software Company
17%
Manufacturing Company
15%
Financial Services Firm
10%
University
6%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

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...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about VAST Data?
The solution is useful for machine learning and scientific applications, including computer simulations.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for VAST Data?
Price-wise, VAST Data is not the cheapest, not the most expensive one.
What needs improvement with VAST Data?
The read/write ratio is an area in the solution with some flaws and needs improvement.
 

Also Known As

Pure FlashArray//X NVMe, Pure FlashArray//X, FlashArray//X
Pavilion HFA
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Fremont Bank, Judson ISD, The Nielsen Company
Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC), Statistics Netherlands (CBS)
Norwest Venture Partners, General Dynamics Information Technology, Ginkgo Bioworks
Find out what your peers are saying about Pavilion HyperParallel Flash Array vs. VAST Data and other solutions. Updated: November 2024.
816,636 professionals have used our research since 2012.