We performed a comparison between HPE Nimble Storage and NetApp AFF based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two All-Flash Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
"The initial setup was extremely simple and straightforward."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"The latency is good."
"It has good, reliable, fast storage."
"The high availability of the product is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use."
"It's incredibly easy to use and greatly simplified our ability to both deploy and manage our storage subsystems."
"It's easy to use, it's just like 3PAR. I made clusters of 32 hosts with 50 volumes and that took barely an hour. I scripted a lot of it, filled in the names of volumes, the names of servers."
"The most valuable features are its cost-effectiveness, performance, and its deduplication deficiencies."
"Nimble Storage is a great storage solution which will give you a lot insight on the growth of your storage."
"The deduplication and compression capabilities are powerful."
"The stability is awesome. The product has always been reliable. It has been 100 percent up. We have never had any downtime with it. Even if a controller fails due to our firmware or whatever, it rolls over to the second one and keeps us running."
"The interaction with VMware is most valuable."
"Deduplication and compression."
"I really like the form factor, which is nice and compact and small."
"The tool's most valuable feature is efficiency."
"One of the main features that differentiate AFF from the FAS products, or some other technologies used, is the footprint of these arrays are significantly smaller than the traditional ones. Also, the performance that you get to these new arrays is really significant. You can see a huge difference there. By switching to it, we can achieve more storage performance and efficiency as well as in the long run lower down some of the TCOs due to reducing the footprint."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is data protection and snapshot technology for backup."
"The most valuable feature is speed."
"The most valuable features are deduplication and compression, so we get more out of our storage. The replication is also important."
"The tool's most valuable feature is SVM. I also like the speed and response of the filers."
"Regarding features, SnapMirror is one we depend on right now. It helps us provide snapshots to the customers on request. There are many scenarios in which we might take snapshots in various daily use cases. We trigger the snapshots, which gives us a sense of security because we know we have this technology in place if something happens."
"The in-line dedupe, and the compaction saves us a lot of space because most of our AFFs house VMware VMDK files."
"The tool's portfolio is minimal. It is expensive."
"There is room for improvement in catering to midrange storage needs, especially for customers seeking Enterprise-class features."
"Our use cases require more multi-tenant capabilities and additional VLAN interfaces for separating different customers. We currently use it to provide storage, sometimes shared storage, to different customers, but it is less flexible in comparison to a dedicated solution."
"In the future, I would like to see integration with enterprise backup systems."
"We have run into a couple of instances recently where we are running out of space. So we have had to buy some more packs for it and they have deployed fine and it has increased smoothly."
"The UI for this solution needs to be improved."
"Right now, the box itself is just strictly working as a backend storage system. It would be fantastic if we could access it directly like a NAS device through network access or SIS drives. I think they have an interface, but I am not sure how good it is. If we could address a box directly on the network without having to go through a server, it would be great. The replication schemas could be improved. We are not using replication on the storage level right now. We use a different type of replication. If their replication would be as good as the one that we have, I would probably run the replication schema because it might be faster, but I don't know that for a fact. So, I cannot say that they have good replication. All I can say is that they need to inform us better."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"You could argue that it would be preferable if everything were cheaper in order to save taxpayer money."
"HPE Nimble Storage could be improved with some critical application or servers."
"The only thing that I can really compare Nimble to is all-flash because, right now, Nimble is a hybrid solution. I would like to see them come out with an all-flash alternative."
"When we’re setting up the solution, making options available regarding the replication tool mechanism would be ideal."
"It would be ideal if all these enterprise-class high-performance products would come at a cheaper price."
"We are doing a hybrid and are moving some machines to Microsoft Azure to run in hybrid mode. We are checking the availability of extra software-defined storage so that we can configure it."
"I would like to have integration into cloud providers, apart from HPE."
"I would like to see an added feature to auto-fix, or a dynamic alerting system on storage."
"NetApp AFF needs to focus more on block storage. It has to focus on high-end, performance-driven applications."
"Additional performance, additional data efficiencies, that's what everybody wants right now."
"The quality of technical support has dwindled over time and needs to be improved."
"In terms of improvement, IO performance could use some enhancement."
"We would like to have more behavioral reporting."
"I would like for them to develop the ability to detach the fabric pool. Once you've added it to an aggregate it's there for life and it would be nice to disconnect it if we ever had to."
"The upgrade process could be a lot quicker, but it's still good as it is. The failovers and things like that are harder than expected."
"A graphical user interface displaying efficiency metrics, such as compression and deduplication rates, would be a great addition."
HPE Nimble Storage is ranked 5th in All-Flash Storage with 119 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 280 reviews. HPE Nimble Storage is rated 9.0, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of HPE Nimble Storage writes "Beneficial management software, straightforward installation, and good support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". HPE Nimble Storage is most compared with Dell Unity XT, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell PowerStore, HPE Primera and HPE 3PAR StoreServ, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Pure Storage FlashArray and HPE Primera. See our HPE Nimble Storage vs. NetApp AFF report.
See our list of best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all All-Flash Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
