Microsoft's Blob Storage system on Azure is designed to make unstructured data available to customers anywhere through REST-based object storage.
$0.01
per GB/per month
Everpure FlashBlade
Score 9.9 out of 10
N/A
Everpure (formerly Pure Storage) offers FlashBlade, a scale-out file and object storage – architected to consolidate complex data silos (like backup appliances and data lakes) while accelerating tomorrow's discoveries and insights.
N/A
Pricing
Azure Blob Storage
Everpure FlashBlade
Editions & Modules
Block Blobs
$0.0081
per GB/per month
Azure Data Lake Storage
$0.0081
per GB/per month
Files
$0.058
per GB/per month
Managed Discs
$1.54
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Azure Blob Storage
Everpure FlashBlade
Free Trial
Yes
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Azure Blob Storage
Everpure FlashBlade
Considered Both Products
Azure Blob Storage
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Azure Blob Storage
Azure Premium Blob offers better latency than competitors. It works best with the Azure ecosystem, and competitors lack it. Azure Blob even stands out in storage durability, providing up to 16 nines. It can have various use cases that can suit all the organisation's needs. The …
In our case, Blob storage was not the deciding factor in switching to the provider. It could have been a knockout criterion if Azure had no or an incompatible object storage (key attributes: reliable, cost-efficient, and reasonably fast), because Azure's internal alternatives …
Blob storage lets us control the file source/hosting and retain everything within our Microsoft ecosystem. Blob is less feature-rich than some of the other products. Still, we consider it as a value-added product included within our environment, and alternative products are not …
Azure Blob Storage was used only because we were already using it for other projects, and it has a good reputation for being a reliable cloud provider. It also has widespread regional availability and allows for data replication. It can also be easily accessed via the API or by …
We didn't actually evaluate anything but Azure Blob Storage since it worked so well for backups and Audit logs and the price point was good enough for us.
Azure Blob Storage is the best choice to store files when the app runs in Azure. It also has some advantages over S3, like Shared Access Signatures, that make it easy to control access to files directly via a URL. Azure Blob Storage is very fast and we have not had any major …
S3 seemed to be just as functional as blob storage in our analysis. The only real difference is we already were on the Microsoft platform with 365, and it was an easy system to continue to learn. That was the only real deciding factor between the two that made any difference …
Ease of use and availability to actual usage makes it my first choice. I feel like IBM Cloud is where azure was 5 years ago in terms of implementation and ease of use. AWS has some great functionality but it almost feels like you need to learn how to work under the hood of a …
Pure Storage FlashBlade provided a flexible and secure solution which these alternatives couldn't quite match. The simple file management system and rapid performance made this solution come out on top for us. The only real benefit over Pure Storage FlashBlade that these other …
Pure Storage FlashBlade is in our experience far faster, performance-wise, compared to its close competitors. However, if you factor in any packages you currently have with IBM or AWS for example, you can get more value for money for your data requirements. However, if …
Pure Storage FlashBlade has certainly very good high speeds when compared to its competition. Its performance is at par with the leading competitive storage solutions and in few cases even exceeds the expectations. Pure Storage FlashBlade's support of talented engineers is very …
It delivers the following, see below, and this is why it was selected as the platform of choice. *Supports CIFS, NFS, and object *Speed and performance
The NetApp a800 we tested was 14% faster than Pure FlashBlade with NFS workloads. However, NetApp lacked ease of administration and performing simple tasks such as creating multiple NFS volumes required scripting from the command line. Our flashblade contained 15 baldes and our …
Prior to FlashBlade, we used Avamar for our enterprise backup solution. While Avamar is a solid product, the FlashBlade provides better and more predictable stable performance. Since owning FlashBlade, we have never had any hardware issues or a drop in performance over time. It …
I've used many different file storage systems in the past from various established firms. They all have their place, but in the end, I wanted a vendor and solution that was high performing, stable, cost-efficient, easy to use and manage with a Sales, Account, and Support team …
We have Oracle ZFS Appliances and the cost of Flashblade was equivalent to one shelf of SSDs in cost. We shopped Isilon and Oracle Solutions, but FlashBlade had a definite cost/performance advantage.
The main difference between them and these mentioned is pure performance. There is no comparing backup and restoration times with competitors. We are talking thrusters vs warp engines here. Data compress and dedupe was for a time when storage came at a premium. Data rehydration …
Of all the storage arrays I've used in the last 20+ years, Pure Flashblade and Flasharray are by far the simplest and easiest to configure. By miles and miles, to be frank. Additionally, performing an upgrade to software or firmware on non-Pure storage platforms in the past …
Pure is both more expensive and less configurable than the excellent HNAS. However, the HNAS is now dependent upon Hitachi storage. The Flashblade is a self-contained unit, which helps reduce cross-platform lock-in. It's not mandatory to have Pure block storage to use the …
IT Hardware Engineer/Storage Architect - Senior Staff Member
Chose Everpure FlashBlade
Pure is easiest to install and administer making it a perfect fit for our EDA scratch environment. Pure lacks mixed mode support which forces Qualcomm to use NetApp or Isilon for any SMB environments.
We did not evaluate other options before purchasing. My personal history is mostly around personal NAS and old platter drive arrays. This thing is light years beyond. Not fair to compare older arrays versus FlashBlade.
We considered all of the major manufacturers of storage when we were evaluating our choice of a product to replace our older storage. We considered HP, EMC, DELL, and Netapp-- all of which the team has used at various times. Interestingly enough, initially no one had experience …
Blob storage is well suited to hosting/sharing zipped files rather than several smaller files, as folder enumeration/listing is not supported. Files uploaded are case-sensitive, so users need to be educated on the correct naming convention format if they are delegating the file-sharing process outside of IT.
Pure Storage FlashBlade is best for companies that want their data stored and secure. The big storage capacity and cloud integration secure our data and ensure no third-party access without authorization. It provides us a secure data storage services for our objects. Fast and easy to install and easy to use.
When reporting out a user has exceeded there quote, it only references the UID. It would certainly be nice it calls out the UID name that is clearly present in the Dashboard.
The ability to determine a snapshot total size would be helpful.
Proactive reachout to discuss new versions and assist in planning the upgrade would be a key win.
Blob storage is fairly simple, with several different options/settings that can be configured. The file explorer has enhanced its usability. Some areas could be improved, such as providing more details or stats on how many times a file has been accessed. It is an obvious choice if you're already using Azure/Entra.
Microsoft has improved its customer service standpoint over the years. The ability to chat with an issue, get a callback, schedule a call or work with an architecture team(for free) is a huge plus. I can get mentorship and guidance on where to go with my environment without pushy sales tactics. This is very refreshing. Typically support can get me to where I need to be on the first contact, which is also nice.
Without exception, the contacts with support have been quick and extremely knowledgeable. I do not fear getting an underqualified engineer to assess or work on my arrays. In addition to this support structure, the sales engineers are top notch as well.
In our case, Blob storage was not the deciding factor in switching to the provider. It could have been a knockout criterion if Azure had no or an incompatible object storage (key attributes: reliable, cost-efficient, and reasonably fast), because Azure's internal alternatives do not work. As these were fulfilled or even overfulfilled (configuration options), the effort required to migrate was well justified, given the S3-based object storage.
Pure Storage FlashBlade is in our experience far faster, performance-wise, compared to its close competitors. However, if you factor in any packages you currently have with IBM or AWS for example, you can get more value for money for your data requirements. However, if performance is a must, the increased cost is not an issue.
Pure has greatly narrowed the performance gap between file storage and fiber channel block storage with FlashBlade. Exotic file systems and costly FC fabrics are no longer needed to run performant storage.
Training is not required for a storage admin who has never touched a Pure array. Everything is where you would expect to find it.