We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"When it comes to the interface of the solution we did not encounter any challenges. Additionally, the solution has good documentation."
"We've found the solution to be very stable so far."
"It's very easy to manage."
"Most of the features for the reduction in data compression are useful. It is also very easy to use and administer. Its performance is also good."
"One of the valuable features is the performance, it is one of the best in the market."
"The power systems are very reliable if you are running 24/7 operations. For ongoing mission-critical applications, it's the best solution."
"The most valuable feature is reliability."
"Over the years, it has become increasingly user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature is SnapMirror."
"Data consolidation and visualization."
"It's an easy product to use that is stable and has good performance."
"For us, the greatest aspect of the solution is the fact that it just runs. It is amazingly resilient. That's very important to us, because we are basically, with some exceptions, have a 24/7 operation."
"The solution is easy to use."
"I like it. When it is up and running, it does the job."
"The most valuable features are the NAS features and NetApp's excellent support."
"You can use different protocols at the same time. Monitoring is also very easy in NetApp FAS Series. There is a free tool for monitoring."
"The Data Reduction Pools (DRP) support could be better."
"The design is a little old-fashioned and could be updated. The rack is very primitive and designed in an older style."
"The pricing could be improved, but I think it's getting better and better with each version. IBM needs to implement NAS storage again, as this is a big flaw. Dell EMC is very good at this and if you compared them based on NAS storage, Dell EMC would win right away. IBM's solution for NAS storage is very complicated. We don't have a storage box that provides file sharing from itself, we have to put software on it and go through a whole complicated process. It should be simplified."
"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 solution is quite expensive. That's one of the downsides to using it."
"The technical support in my region is satisfactory but it could improve. Support is very important for customers and downtime is very critical for us. We would like onsite or complete technical support which can help us to minimize our downtime or if problems occur."
"It could be easier to implement."
"The support could improve by allowing you to speak to someone when you call rather than them calling you back. However, once we do have contact with one of their technicians they are excellent."
"Its operating system is very cumbersome. However, after you set it up, it runs pretty smoothly. Its file system is not very dynamic. It is very static."
"The solution could do more than just data."
"Interfacing with the cloud environment could be better. I want to be able to move some cloud volume and integrate it seamlessly with my home on-premise storage. Sometimes I have issues with port permissions. NetApp probably needs to improve more on the integration side from on-premise to the cloud."
"We're supposed to have used NetApp FAS Series for replication, but then one of the nodes failed, and then it's taken us some time to bring it up."
"Its licensing cost can be improved."
"You always need a huge amount of hardware to fulfill a given setup. Its deployment can be complex, especially if you go MetroCluster."
"Currently, the newest release is not HCI friendly."
"There is no NetApp infrastructure set up here in Greece."
"Overall the price of the solution is expensive and this includes the license."
"I find the pricing of the solution to be very reasonable."
"Among IBM, Dell EMC, and Pure Storage, IBM is the cheapest. The price is also based on our location, the size of our entity, and our regular annual purchases from them. We are a very big IBM customer, so we normally get very high discounts. We are not a big customer of Pure Storage. We don't buy that much from Pure Storage per year. Everything is included in the price. There is no extra license for different functions."
"The pricing may be a bit higher than other brands. If you compare the IBM FlashSystems in midrange with Dell EMC in midrange, IBM costs a bit more, but I prefer IBM because it has more specs that I can benefit from."
"The solution requires a license and could be less expensive."
"This is an expensive product and if the price were reduced it would be better."
"The integration is already included in the license cost of IBM FlashSystem. The integration is very easy. You get the IBM storage core with all software, firmware, and upgrades. EMC provides the features in the box, but they are not free for customers. There is a licensing cost for features. We have yearly licensing, but IBM has also provided a new option where you pay as you go. They provide a big box, and I pay, for example, for 10 terabytes. If I exceed 10 terabytes, IBM will charge for the new storage after 10 terabytes. It is a good opportunity in the market for using the storage as a cloud and paying as you go."
"They've been much more aggressive in the last five, six years than they were before that."
"The NetApp FAS series price is very competitive compared to other solutions on the market it is a good choice."
"I've sold arrays for as little $20,000 USD and as high as $300,000 USD."
"It is expensive."
"It definitely depends on the contract. It depends on where you buy it from, which features are you going to use, and what is your personal benefit of the features that you plan to use for the system."
"It's not cheap, but at the same time, it's also inexpensive. It's somewhere in between."
"We purchased it for four years, and it wasn't expensive. It was reasonable. Every company has a different agreement with NetApp. We got everything we wanted with all the bells and whistles and all the features and functionalities."
"We are on a perpetual license."
"NetApp FAS Series could be less expensive."
IBM FlashSystem products are enterprise computer data storage systems that store data on flash memory chips. Unlike storage systems that use standard solid-state drives, IBM FlashSystem products incorporate custom hardware based on technology from the 2012 acquisition of Texas Memory Systems. This hardware provides performance, reliability, and efficiency benefits versus competitive offerings.
IBM FlashSystem is ranked 2nd in NAS with 18 reviews while NetApp FAS Series is ranked 5th in NAS with 15 reviews. IBM FlashSystem is rated 8.2, while NetApp FAS Series is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of IBM FlashSystem writes "Simple licensing, good performance, and easy to use and administer". On the other hand, the top reviewer of NetApp FAS Series writes "Resilient without disrupting the user experience and very stable". IBM FlashSystem is most compared with Pure Storage FlashArray, Dell EMC PowerStore, Dell EMC Unity XT, HPE Nimble Storage and HPE 3PAR StoreServ, whereas NetApp FAS Series is most compared with Dell EMC PowerScale (Isilon), HPE StorageWorks MSA, Dell EMC PowerProtect DD (Data Domain), FreeNAS and Qumulo. See our IBM FlashSystem vs. NetApp FAS Series report.
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.