We performed a comparison between Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform and Pure Storage FlashArray 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 latency is good."
"Offers excellent features like efficient data reduction, a reliable SafeMode, and a great support model for continuous assistance and updates."
"The Pure1 component is most valuable at this point in time when comparing it with EMC. Pure1 is where you can have your diagnostics in the cloud, so you can look at things from your mobile phone."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"We're able to get higher-density workloads on the same infrastructure, and we have a smaller physical footprint. The performance is excellent – during our test the bottlenecks are never on the X array, it just keeps picking up the pace to match what you need. The real-time visibility is a differentiator in my opinion."
"Overall stability is very good. It is a very stable solution."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The most valuable feature of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform G Series is the platform and overall usage has been good. We have not had very many issues."
"This is one of the most reliable and dependable products on the market."
"Its resilience is the most valuable."
"The most valuable features are external storage virtualization and the 100 percent data guaranteed availability."
"One of the features, for us, that is important is the monitoring platform integrated into the solution. It has all the elements that we need to see, at all times, to be sure the platform is working right."
"The performance was decent."
"The deduplication is useful for us because we don't have that much money for our lab infrastructure. Deduplication means we have more storage available. And the IOPS are really fast."
"It is robust. It doesn't need too much troubleshooting. It is a good device."
"We were actually able to do multiple upgrades, including head upgrades and moving between the platforms, M20 and M50, over the years. We have never once lost a ping and have never had an outage due to an OS upgrade or a complete head upgrade."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the support."
"We put a fair amount of stress on it because we run sequel workloads and we run web applications where the same web files are hit over and over. We have had almost zero stability issues with that SAN, that has been really great for us."
"We consume less physical storage because of the solution’s deduplication and compression."
"It's simple, powerful, and ready to use."
"It helps to simplify storage. For most of our customers, when they move to Pure Storage, storage becomes an afterthought."
"The most valuable features are the replication of data and the continuous snapshot that we can take from the disc."
"We've been using FlashArray's snapshot for backups. Their replication across sites and response time are also excellent."
"We would like to see more visibility into garbage collection and CPU performance in the GUI."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"I'd like to see the product implement active replication for vehicles such as VMware."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"They could add more support for file storage and different types of storage."
"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."
"Every time I think of something that needs to improve, they're one step ahead, which I love. The only area I wish to see improve, I believe is coming, is in the FlashBlade product. Blade implementation fell short on a few of the services."
"If the customer only needs 500 terabytes and doesn't care how much data they'll put in the server, IBM is cheaper than Pure."
"The interface should be simplified and made easier to use."
"The snapshot and clone operation functions can be made easier."
"We have not been able to procure more discs for upcoming projects and this has been a problem for us. Not having additional storage is going to be an issue. The solution is at its end of life and will be replaced soon."
"It seemed like every time we turned around it was a statement of work and we'd have to pay for something that our previous vendors would not have billed us for."
"The user interface should be made simpler because it is difficult to manage."
"The user experience is pretty bad in Hitachi. A lot of mandatory tasks take a long time to work through."
"n future releases, I would like to see enhancements in the web GUI capabilities for direct management without additional PCM."
"They should look at the cost because there are other vendors who offer the same cost with more features."
"In the next release of the solution I would like to see Vormetric native block encryption."
"It was not proactive communication."
"The solution is not cheap."
"I would rate this solution an eight because we have had outages. The commit times went very high in the database. The whole array went down so our customers were down for around eight hours. This was a very big outage which could have been our fault because we didn't do the upgrade in time."
"It would be nice to have a better view of the allocated capacity on their Platform as a Service solution because we have to do some manual calculations to understand how much we are going to pay every month to use the storage that is allocated."
"Most of our upgrades have not been as smooth as they should have been."
"The GUI is simplistic and basic. I feel like it's explanatory, but not enough, it needs a little more to it."
"Had some issues with Purity not being entirely compatible with VMware ESXi."
More Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is ranked 10th in All-Flash Storage with 49 reviews while Pure Storage FlashArray is ranked 3rd in All-Flash Storage with 174 reviews. Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is rated 8.4, while Pure Storage FlashArray is rated 9.2. The top reviewer of Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform writes "Leverages a 3DC architecture with VSP for disaster recovery, offering a 100% data availability guarantee". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pure Storage FlashArray writes "Effective provisioning, helpful support, and reliable". Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform is most compared with IBM FlashSystem, Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, Dell Unity XT and NetApp FAS Series, whereas Pure Storage FlashArray is most compared with Dell PowerStore, NetApp AFF, HPE Nimble Storage, IBM FlashSystem and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI). See our Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform vs. Pure Storage FlashArray 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.
