What users are saying about
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
253 Ratings
12 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8 out of 101

Pure Storage FlashArray

<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring#question3' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>Customer Verified: Read more.</a>
253 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow noopener noreferrer'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 9.3 out of 101

Likelihood to Recommend

NetApp All Flash FAS

We us our AFF to support all applications that have a response time imperative or are IO intensive such as databases, email, VMware VMs and applications that have users at a keyboard needing a responsive interaction. It is also where we put all data that must be encrypted at rest such as HIPAA data.
It is of no value to data that is generally archived, little used or has low IO requirements. These would include scanned images, videos, IP Camera storage and most CIFS and NFS file based storage. For these types of applications SATA is still a better choice.
Paul Lemmons profile photo

Pure Storage FlashArray

We've seen that almost all VM workloads have been drastically improved when moving to the Pure Storage FlashArray. One scenario that hasn't worked well, and seems to be an expensive investment, are the encrypted SQL database systems that do not dedupe or compress. The data consumption on this workload was a 1:1 ratio, which killed our overall capacity right off the bat.
Ken Garcia profile photo

Feature Rating Comparison

Enterprise Flash Array Storage

NetApp All Flash FAS
9.5
Pure Storage FlashArray
9.2
Flash Array Performance
NetApp All Flash FAS
10.0
Pure Storage FlashArray
9.4
Data Compression
NetApp All Flash FAS
9.0
Pure Storage FlashArray
9.0
Non-Intrusive Upgrades
NetApp All Flash FAS
10.0
Pure Storage FlashArray
9.4
Simplicity
NetApp All Flash FAS
9.0
Pure Storage FlashArray
9.3
Flash Array Integration
NetApp All Flash FAS
Pure Storage FlashArray
9.1
Power Savings
NetApp All Flash FAS
Pure Storage FlashArray
8.8

Pros

NetApp All Flash FAS

  • It is fast. We have multiple large and vastly different types of workloads and our response time is always sub-milisecond
  • NetApp has done a phenomenal job with developing Ontap. It continues to improve in large leaps on a short development cycle
  • The snapshot technology at the heart of Ontap is incredibly powerful and versatile. It is at the heart of most of their most useful technologies.
  • Non-disruptive moves of volumes between nodes, aggregates and even different media types makes management vert simple
  • Volume level data encryption. We have this enabled for all volumes and have seen zero performance impact.
Paul Lemmons profile photo

Pure Storage FlashArray

  • The most valuable features are extremely low latency, high IOPS with VMware, inline deduplication and compression. We have consolidated all of the SAN into the same box.
  • I liked the non-disruptive downgrade from FA-420 (POC) to FA-405 in production and the non-disruptive upgrade from FA-405 to M20. This is a great plus for the business.
Andrea Spaziani profile photo

Cons

NetApp All Flash FAS

  • The GUI of Ontap is in constant flux. Every time there is an upgrade it appears to be completely redesigned. Some stability in its design would be nice
  • As new or improved technologies addressing compression, compaction and deduplication occur within upgrades it would be nice if preexisting data could benefit from it by background processes looking for opportunities to apply savings to data in place.
  • It is not simple to see when data from the AFF is being access inefficiently through the cluster interconnect. Because data moves sometimes access to the data remains with the nodes that originally owned them. I would like to be able to easily identify these instances so that I can take corrective action.
Paul Lemmons profile photo

Pure Storage FlashArray

  • Reports of performance and LUN utilization/deduplication could be improved. I’d love to view the average, minimum, and maximum performance in the reports but it is only graphics and you need to export the data into a CSV to find this information.
Andrea Spaziani profile photo

Likelihood to Renew

NetApp All Flash FAS

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Pure Storage FlashArray

Pure Storage FlashArray 8.6
Based on 8 answers
We like the product and it is the 3rd year we are using this solution, we won't be changing the solution for the next 2 years.
Edwin Asparsayogi profile photo

Usability

NetApp All Flash FAS

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Pure Storage FlashArray

Pure Storage FlashArray 9.1
Based on 2 answers
Never had an array that was easier to use.
Bas Penris profile photo

Support

NetApp All Flash FAS

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Pure Storage FlashArray

Pure Storage FlashArray 8.7
Based on 70 answers
So far our only support cases have been non-critical and it's taken days. But I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that if we had a real crash they'd come through.
Jonathan Biviano profile photo

Implementation

NetApp All Flash FAS

No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Pure Storage FlashArray

Pure Storage FlashArray 9.1
Based on 3 answers
Listen to the experts from Pure!
Bas Penris profile photo

Alternatives Considered

NetApp All Flash FAS

I have been an IBM and EMC storage customer. I used EMC CX and VMX series SANs. I have used IBM Shark SANs before that. Much has changed over the years. It is my experience that Netapp has shown a great deal more innovation with large leaps in technology, ease of use and an aggressive progress while the two other vendors that I have experience with are more tied to their legacy technologies.
Paul Lemmons profile photo

Pure Storage FlashArray

I looked at several different vendors, then did a POC bake-off between the Pure Storage FlashArray and Nimble Storage AF series flash array. It was very close on performance, but Pure was easier to set up, manage, and maintenance was non-disruptive.
Toby Wenzel profile photo

Return on Investment

NetApp All Flash FAS

  • Epic, our EMR providor, has very aggressive guidelines for performance. The Netapp AFF meets those guidlines easily eben in a mixed workload environment. This has helped us meet our business objectives by not having to diversify our storage platforms or vendors.
  • Multi-protocol support (block (ISCSI/FiberChannel) or File (NFS/CIFS)) Allows us to use the Netapp systems to solve all storage requirements regardless of the system needing storage
  • Clustered technologies along with non-disruptive movement of data between nodes on the cluster make hardware refreshes simple and allows the business to keep running without interruption even during massive data moves.
Paul Lemmons profile photo

Pure Storage FlashArray

  • Very little management after initial setup.
  • It is quite expensive, so we haven't noticed an ROI on hardware costs, but many less man hours are required to manage the FlashArrays.
  • The performance provided using a FlashArray over legacy SAN, is probably the biggest ROI we see.
Toby Wenzel profile photo

Pricing Details

NetApp All Flash FAS

General

Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No

Pure Storage FlashArray

General

Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No

Add comparison