We performed a comparison between HPE 3PAR StoreServ and IBM FlashSystem based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two NAS solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Pure has signature security technology, which cannot be deleted, even if you are an administrator."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its ease of use and performance."
"It has good, reliable, fast storage."
"One of the best features is the support, which is excellent."
"What I really like about this program, is that it is easy to use and easy to configurate."
"Pure FlashArray X NVMe has low latency and high Ops. It is an evergreen model."
"Overall stability is very good. It is a very stable solution."
"Offers excellent features like efficient data reduction, a reliable SafeMode, and a great support model for continuous assistance and updates."
"Any action we want to do with a Dell EMC product needs a license. But with 3PAR's converged solution, at least there is no need to purchase more licenses to get the all the features that we need. We can get basic and mid-range features without licenses."
"With our 3PARs, we have never lost data."
"The speed is very good."
"The most valuable feature of HPE 3PAR StoreServ is its storage capabilities."
"The most valuable feature of HPE 3PAR StoreServ is its online upgrades."
"It is a really stable product. We have not had any major issues at the moment."
"The all-flash positions our organization for growth. If somebody comes to us who needs an application with performance, we have that already formulated."
"I do not have to worry about cross systems talking to each other or multiple systems trying to interact with each other. Our entire vCenter infrastructure is one large stack, which is nice."
"The speed, performance, and stability are the best features of IBM FlashSystem."
"The storage system is one of the best in the world."
"FlashSystem offers proven technology in a compact package."
"IBM FlashSystem is flexible, quick, and has a solid design."
"The most valuable features are deduplication and compression, which together, enable you to have more space."
"The most valuable feature is that is supports a high IOPS rate."
"It is simple to make an update."
"The valuable features for us are the extra add-ons, such as the FIM provisioning, the compression, the disaster recovery capabilities, and the storage pooling functions."
"It is on the expensive side."
"We would like to see VNC integration or be able to use Pure Storage with VNC."
"In the next release, I would like to see real-time analytics for further insight into consumption models."
"Many options to check performance, like read, writes, random writes, and random reads, are missing in Pure FlashArray X NVMe."
"Efficiency improvements would always be welcome, but I'm not sure if they could get more efficient."
"It's more multi-tenant functionality in their Pure1 manage portal that is lacking."
"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."
"We've seen that when we create a POD in synchronous mode, it increases the latency."
"The solution’s customer support could be improved."
"The replicating software is pretty complicated. I probably would have put it on a sequence."
"The tool is old."
"We are seeing that there are some enhancements which are required in the SSMC console. There are some features that we do not see in the dashboard."
"We need longer names for our volumes. Now it's only 28 characters. It should be 64, or at least more than 32 characters."
"The management console could use some work. All the functionality is there, of course, but it can be hard to find some features or do certain tasks."
"Sometimes the required upgrades have been a little bit involved: "You have to do this before you do this," and I want them to explain to me why. It's more work than it should be."
"I would like the documentation easy to find. There is a lot of documentation, but sometimes it is hard to find. You have to do a lot of searching to find it."
"The solution is quite expensive. That's one of the downsides to using it."
"I would like to see an improvement in the handling of large amounts of rights."
"The security features can be improved such that the encryption does not affect performance in any way."
"The solution is not easy to use and could improve."
"They can improve its initial configuration. The initial configuration is currently very difficult. There are multiple choices or alternative ways to configure based on the use case and what you are targeting out of the device, that is, more capacity or more performance. These multiple alternatives cause a lot of confusion. They should increase the processing part of the nodes. Currently, you can cluster up to eight nodes. From my experience and the workload that I am facing in my environment currently, I would like to see either a bigger or stronger node or a larger number of nodes that can be clustered together. We formally communicated to them that we need to see either this or that, and they are working on something."
"The Data Reduction Pools (DRP) support could be better."
"Additional licenses might be added for the fundamental licenses, such as those for copying and flash copies."
"The solution's infrastructure technology level could be PCI Express 5 instead of PCI Express 4 for the next version."
HPE 3PAR StoreServ is ranked 6th in NAS with 299 reviews while IBM FlashSystem is ranked 4th in NAS with 106 reviews. HPE 3PAR StoreServ is rated 8.6, while IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of HPE 3PAR StoreServ writes "The product's technical support is outstanding as I can reach someone right away". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "An easy GUI and simple provisioning but our model does not support compression". HPE 3PAR StoreServ is most compared with HPE Primera, Dell Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage, NetApp AFF and HPE EVA, whereas IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Dell PowerStore, Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell Unity XT, NetApp AFF and Hitachi Virtual Storage Platform. See our HPE 3PAR StoreServ vs. IBM FlashSystem report.
See our list of best NAS vendors, best Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) vendors, and best All-Flash Storage vendors.
We monitor all NAS 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.
