We performed a comparison between Fungible Storage Cluster and NetApp NVMe AFF A800 based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Dell Technologies, NetApp, Hitachi Vantara and others in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays."The solution is scalable."
"The solution is very straightforward to set up."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe helps to improve our processing speed. It is user-friendly and easy to use."
"Offers excellent features like efficient data reduction, a reliable SafeMode, and a great support model for continuous assistance and updates."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is reliability."
"The system allows for seamless learning experiences, facilitating quick and easy cloning of environments within minutes."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"The most valuable features are that it is easy to implement and configure, easy to use, and really reliable."
"NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is easier to use than some other solutions and the UI is very good to use for day-to-day activities. Overall, the solution has good technology."
"Over the eight years, we've been using NetApp with ONTAP, we've never lost a bit of data, and we've only experienced a few minutes of downtime in that entire time."
"The product can be scaled vertically as well as horizontally."
"The storage features are valuable."
"We find the product to be very flexible."
"You can easily scale up, and scale-out."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is a product that is fast and provides a fast I/O."
"During the use cases of the solution, its reliability and suitability are the best."
"I would like to see replication and DR features in the next release of this solution."
"There is room for improvement in catering to midrange storage needs, especially for customers seeking Enterprise-class features."
"In the future, I would like to see integration with enterprise backup systems."
"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."
"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."
"I'd like to see the product implement active replication for vehicles such as VMware."
"The tool's pricing is higher than competitors."
"The security and reporting could be improved."
"Increasing the RAM, and including physical cords would be beneficial."
"The cost of the solution is quite high. It would be ideal if they could adjust it so that it's a but less."
"Sometimes, it takes a while to get somebody competent on the other end of the line. They do have engineers in multiple time zones around the world. However, their level-one support is not always the best."
"The technical support has room for improvement."
"The initial setup is complex."
"The initial setup should be easier, and more like a plug-and-play approach."
"The product's performance has some shortcomings, making it an area that could be a little better."
"The support can take a few days to have a response. However, the response that we do receive is very informative."
Earn 20 points
Fungible Storage Cluster is ranked 18th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is ranked 7th in NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays with 10 reviews. Fungible Storage Cluster is rated 7.0, while NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Fungible Storage Cluster writes "Easy to implement and configure but the security and reporting could be improved". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp NVMe AFF A800 writes "Very easy to manage, highly stable and offers robustness of the CLI, API, and GUI ". Fungible Storage Cluster is most compared with , whereas NetApp NVMe AFF A800 is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Huawei OceanStor Dorado, Lenovo ThinkSystem DM Series, NetApp ASA and Dell PowerMax NVMe.
See our list of best NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays vendors and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all NVMe All-Flash Storage Arrays 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.
