We performed a comparison between HPE Primera 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 most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe will quickly overcome all the hurdles you face, including network and latency issues."
"The latency is good."
"The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"It's helped us because we've changed fundamentally what we talk about. We don't talk about storage and different tiers of storage anymore nor do we talk about servers. We talk now about applications and how applications impact the business and end users."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not overly complex."
"The most valuable feature is an all-flash system, which means the data access speed is amazing while the latency is almost nothing, and it can deliver IOPS up to 16,000."
"The most valuable feature of HPE Primera is its performance and simple replication."
"We sold Primera to a public university, and they're happy with it. They have been using it for about four months with no significant problems."
"HPE Primera is an all-flash storage product that's very stable and has a higher storage capacity. It can also give better ROI compared to NetApp."
"HPE Primera has good integration. All the users are using HP servers and some systems, such as Synergy, which integrate well into the solution."
"There has been a lot of changes in HPE Primera OS, and most of the time any package related to it is simple to upgrade. It does not require any support for the operation. The customer can easily deploy any code directly from the GUI which is very good. Additionally, we have individual storage we can allocate and easily manage."
"The product's initial setup phase was easy."
"The most valuable features are high performance and encryption. It also provides aggregate level dedupe."
"We can go through and do an upgrade without worrying about any issues with the process"
"We are spending less time putting out fires, so there's a tangible benefit right there."
"The tool has lowered latency."
"Technical support is good."
"AFF helps us improve performance for our enterprise applications, data analytics and VMs. We have moved our primary data stores for production over to AFF, and a lot of the problems that might happened have gone away."
"I like the ability to snapshot, and the cloning features are valuable to us as well. I like that I can quickly and efficiently snapshot the data and move it to wherever I need to locally or in the cloud. Also, I know that when I take the snapshot that all of the data will be there and that it will be usable when I need to use it."
"It is easy to manage data through the GUI by using Active IQ and the unified manager."
"I'd like to see the product implement active replication for vehicles such as VMware."
"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."
"We need better data deduplication."
"The software layer has to improve."
"There is room for improvement in the pricing of the product."
"There is room for improvement in catering to midrange storage needs, especially for customers seeking Enterprise-class features."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"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."
"There really isn't any aspect of the solution that needs improvement for the customer other than its price."
"Like most storage, we want to see flash become more and more stable. Like any flash that uses MLC or TLC techniques, over time, the more writes you have, the less usable the storage becomes. They try to plan for this and have a lot of extra space in the arrays, but over time, their performance does degrade. This is true for any flash storage."
"We would like to have more flash storage and its stability. This is an area of challenge for us."
"There are certain features that require engineering-level access, which should be accessible to storage admins as well."
"On the hardware side, you should have the ability to expand capacity to larger numbers."
"HPE Primera's deduplication area is not as good as the one offered by Dell PowerStore, making it an area where improvements are required."
"The product’s price needs improvement."
"The solution has good performance but it could improve further."
"When it comes to the connectivity on the back end, where the hardware is concerned—the cabling and the like—it could also be simplified to ease the communication between the nodes and between the other components of the infrastructure. I still find that a little bit complicated."
"We should be able to manage NetApp AFF as per the desired usage and needs."
"The quality of technical support has dwindled over time and needs to be improved."
"Additional performance, additional data efficiencies, that's what everybody wants right now."
"We have been seeing some challenges around the application layer implementation. We are having some teething problems now with the cooperation between the application layer and backups to things, like SnapCenter. This may be a question of product maturity."
"The bad part about having scalability is the expense. It is currently extremely expensive, to be able to scale so fast on flash."
"On the roadmap, NetApp is improving the solution's storage efficiency, compression algorithms to achieve more space savings, and the management interfaces. We are looking forward to these feature additions in the next release."
"I would like to see NetApp improve more of its offline tools and utilities."
HPE Primera is ranked 7th in All-Flash Storage with 38 reviews while NetApp AFF is ranked 2nd in All-Flash Storage with 281 reviews. HPE Primera is rated 8.4, while NetApp AFF is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of HPE Primera writes "A highly stable and easy-to-configure solution that provides excellent features that enable smooth migration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp AFF writes "Since switching, our clients have reported improved performance and reduced latency". HPE Primera is most compared with HPE 3PAR StoreServ, HPE Nimble Storage, Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT and IBM FlashSystem, whereas NetApp AFF is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Dell Unity XT, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, Pure Storage FlashArray and Huawei OceanStor Dorado. See our HPE Primera 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.
