NetApp StorageGRID vs. Pure Storage FlashBlade

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
StorageGRID
Score 5.0 out of 10
N/A
NetApp's StorageGRID is open S3 object store to manage your unstructured data at scale.N/A
Pure Storage FlashBlade
Score 9.9 out of 10
N/A
Pure Storage offers FlashBlade, a scale-out file and object storage – architected to consolidate complex data silos (like backup appliances and data lakes) while accelerating tomorrow's discoveries and insights.N/A
Pricing
NetApp StorageGRIDPure Storage FlashBlade
Editions & Modules
No answers on this topic
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
StorageGRIDPure Storage FlashBlade
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
NetApp StorageGRIDPure Storage FlashBlade
Considered Both Products
StorageGRID
Chose StorageGRID
We chose NetApp StorageGRID because we were not looking for a true backup solution but wanted the features to included a DR centric ideology. The IBM Cloud Backup solution was purely backup focused and did not fit the requirements for our needs. NetApp StorageGRID checked all …
Pure Storage FlashBlade
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Pure Storage FlashBlade provided a flexible and secure solution which these alternatives couldn't quite match. The simple file management system and rapid performance made this solution come out on top for us. The only real benefit over Pure Storage FlashBlade that these other …
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Pure Storage FlashBlade is in our experience far faster, performance-wise, compared to its close competitors. However, if you factor in any packages you currently have with IBM or AWS for example, you can get more value for money for your data requirements. However, if …
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Pure Storage FlashBlade is very fast. [It was] simplify with the easy install, easy upgrades, automatic performance.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
The NetApp All Flash FAS provided similar performance but had a larger footprint.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Pure Storage FlashBlade has certainly very good high speeds when compared to its competition. Its performance is at par with the leading competitive storage solutions and in few cases even exceeds the expectations. Pure Storage FlashBlade's support of talented engineers is very …
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
It delivers the following, see below, and this is why it was selected as the platform of choice.
*Supports CIFS, NFS, and object
*Speed and performance
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
We did not evaluate any other products, the FlashBlade has nothing similar in my opinion.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Pure Storage FlashBlade provides higher performance than the competition.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
The NetApp a800 we tested was 14% faster than Pure FlashBlade with NFS workloads. However, NetApp lacked ease of administration and performing simple tasks such as creating multiple NFS volumes required scripting from the command line. Our flashblade contained 15 baldes and our …
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Flasharray C is the true second-tier storage we were looking for with all the features we need.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Prior to FlashBlade, we used Avamar for our enterprise backup solution. While Avamar is a solid product, the FlashBlade provides better and more predictable stable performance. Since owning FlashBlade, we have never had any hardware issues or a drop in performance over time. It …
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
I've used many different file storage systems in the past from various established firms. They all have their place, but in the end, I wanted a vendor and solution that was high performing, stable, cost-efficient, easy to use and manage with a Sales, Account, and Support team …
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
We have Oracle ZFS Appliances and the cost of Flashblade was equivalent to one shelf of SSDs in cost. We shopped Isilon and Oracle Solutions, but FlashBlade had a definite cost/performance advantage.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
The main difference between them and these mentioned is pure performance. There is no comparing backup and restoration times with competitors. We are talking thrusters vs warp engines here. Data compress and dedupe was for a time when storage came at a premium. Data rehydration …
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
The NetApp All Flash FAS provided similar performance but had a larger footprint.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
I haven't used others.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
FlashBlade is high capacity and much higher performance than other disk based NAZ servers.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Of all the storage arrays I've used in the last 20+ years, Pure Flashblade and Flasharray are by far the simplest and easiest to configure. By miles and miles, to be frank. Additionally, performing an upgrade to software or firmware on non-Pure storage platforms in the past …
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Pure is both more expensive and less configurable than the excellent HNAS. However, the HNAS is now dependent upon Hitachi storage. The Flashblade is a self-contained unit, which helps reduce cross-platform lock-in. It's not mandatory to have Pure block storage to use the …
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Pure is easiest to install and administer making it a perfect fit for our EDA scratch environment. Pure lacks mixed mode support which forces Qualcomm to use NetApp or Isilon for any SMB environments.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
We did not evaluate other options before purchasing. My personal history is mostly around personal NAS and old platter drive arrays. This thing is light years beyond. Not fair to compare older arrays versus FlashBlade.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
Performace knocked it out of the park. Our only issue at the time was that ECS wasn't supported with Replication.
Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade
We considered all of the major manufacturers of storage when we were evaluating our choice of a product to replace our older storage. We considered HP, EMC, DELL, and Netapp-- all of which the team has used at various times. Interestingly enough, initially no one had experience …
Best Alternatives
NetApp StorageGRIDPure Storage FlashBlade
Small Businesses
Amazon S3 Glacier
Amazon S3 Glacier
Score 9.1 out of 10
Amazon S3 Glacier
Amazon S3 Glacier
Score 9.1 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
Azure Blob Storage
Azure Blob Storage
Score 9.7 out of 10
Azure Blob Storage
Azure Blob Storage
Score 9.7 out of 10
Enterprises
Azure Blob Storage
Azure Blob Storage
Score 9.7 out of 10
Azure Blob Storage
Azure Blob Storage
Score 9.7 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
NetApp StorageGRIDPure Storage FlashBlade
Likelihood to Recommend
10.0
(0 ratings)
8.4
(0 ratings)
Usability
-
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
9.0
(0 ratings)
8.2
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
NetApp StorageGRIDPure Storage FlashBlade
Likelihood to Recommend
The NetApp StorageGRID solution fits in perfectly with what our company was trying to accomplish. Our goal was to free up our expensive storage flash (SSD) capacity for our critical applications to allow for growth and added performance capabilities. I do not believe this solution would be greatly suited for those without a Cloud solution or secondary site/system to tier data.
Read full review
Pure Storage FlashBlade is best for companies that want their data stored and secure. The big storage capacity and cloud integration secure our data and ensure no third-party access without authorization. It provides us a secure data storage services for our objects. Fast and easy to install and easy to use.
Read full review
Pros
  • Allows for very granular data tiering policies
  • Integrates seamlessly with our Cloud solution
  • Easy deployment
  • Easy to manage and adapt to a changing environment
Read full review
  • Speed. We are seeing large transactions take very little time.
  • Upgrades- In-place upgrades of both hardware and software are extremely easy.
  • Ease of use- I have several engineers working on this and from setup to day to day operations it is extremely easy to maintain.
Read full review
Cons
  • Initial network design can be tedious
  • Provide more out-of-the-box ILM policies
  • Include professional services time with each purchase
Read full review
  • When reporting out a user has exceeded there quote, it only references the UID. It would certainly be nice it calls out the UID name that is clearly present in the Dashboard.
  • The ability to determine a snapshot total size would be helpful.
  • Proactive reachout to discuss new versions and assist in planning the upgrade would be a key win.
Read full review
Usability
No answers on this topic
Good API, multi-protocol support is great.
Read full review
Support Rating
NetApp Support was able to quickly resolve a networking issue during the deployment of the NetApp StorageGRID system, which we, unfortunately, could not figure out on our own. Not only did Support engage quickly, but they also provided guidance on how to properly troubleshoot various issues such as the one we encountered and also provided excellent documentation.
Read full review
Without exception, the contacts with support have been quick and extremely knowledgeable. I do not fear getting an underqualified engineer to assess or work on my arrays. In addition to this support structure, the sales engineers are top notch as well.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
We chose NetApp StorageGRID because we were not looking for a true backup solution but wanted the features to included a DR centric ideology. The IBM Cloud Backup solution was purely backup focused and did not fit the requirements for our needs. NetApp StorageGRID checked all of our boxes in regards to cost, use case, and ease of manageability.
Read full review
Pure Storage FlashBlade is in our experience far faster, performance-wise, compared to its close competitors. However, if you factor in any packages you currently have with IBM or AWS for example, you can get more value for money for your data requirements. However, if performance is a must, the increased cost is not an issue.
Read full review
Return on Investment
  • Added Flash capacity
  • Decreased application latency
  • Decreased data storage costs
Read full review
  • Pure has greatly narrowed the performance gap between file storage and fiber channel block storage with FlashBlade. Exotic file systems and costly FC fabrics are no longer needed to run performant storage.
  • Training is not required for a storage admin who has never touched a Pure array. Everything is where you would expect to find it.
Read full review
ScreenShots