Pure Storage FlashBlade vs. Qumulo Core

Pure Storage FlashBlade

Pure Storage FlashBlade

62 Reviews and Ratings

Qumulo Core

Qumulo Core

6 Reviews and Ratings

Overview
Product	Rating	Most Used By	Product Summary	Starting Price
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
Qumulo Core	Score 7.0 out of 10	N/A	Qumulo Core Hybrid Cloud File Storage delivers real-time visibility, scale and control of data across on-prem and cloud. Qumulo customers can manage storage at a granular level, programmatically configuring and managing usage, capacity and performance.	N/A

Pricing

Pure Storage FlashBlade

Qumulo Core

Editions & Modules

No answers on this topic

No answers on this topic

Offerings

Pricing Offerings
Pure Storage FlashBlade	Qumulo Core
Free Trial
No	No
Free/Freemium Version
No	No
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No	No

Entry-level Setup Fee

No setup fee

No setup fee

Additional Details

—

—

More Pricing Information

Community Pulse
	Pure Storage FlashBlade	Qumulo Core
Considered Both Products	Pure Storage FlashBlade Verified User Anonymous 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Alexander Cooper RPA Developer 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Chirag Deol Chief Marketing Officer Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade Pure Storage FlashBlade is very fast. [It was] simplify with the easy install, easy upgrades, automatic performance. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade The NetApp All Flash FAS provided similar performance but had a larger footprint. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous 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 Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade We did not evaluate any other products, the FlashBlade has nothing similar in my opinion. Incentivized Helpful? Edward Hammond Principal Solutions Architect Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade Pure Storage FlashBlade provides higher performance than the competition. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Julie Ulrich Systems Engineer Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade Flasharray C is the true second-tier storage we were looking for with all the features we need. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous 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. Incentivized Helpful? Nathan Chitwood Sr. Systems Administrator 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 … Incentivized Helpful? CS Chris Stotler Manager Platform and Storage Engineering Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade We did not evaluate any other products. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade The NetApp All Flash FAS provided similar performance but had a larger footprint. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade I haven't used others. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous Chose Pure Storage FlashBlade FlashBlade is high capacity and much higher performance than other disk based NAZ servers. Incentivized Helpful? JC Jeremy Calcamuggio Senior Systems Engineer 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous 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 … Incentivized Helpful? Todd Crouse IT Hardware Engineer/Storage Architect - Senior Staff Member 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. Incentivized Helpful? Verified User Anonymous 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. Incentivized Helpful? Michael Cannella Enterprise Cloud Architect 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. Incentivized Helpful? DT David Thornton, CISSP Security Engineering Manager 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 … Incentivized Helpful?	Qumulo Core Verified User Anonymous Chose Qumulo Core Qumulo was not the least expensive but we were blown away by support offered and pre-sales support to ensure questions were answered. Our main challenges were mixed end-user platforms and a diverse set of use cases on those end-user computers. Having the dual access to volumes, … Incentivized Helpful?

Best Alternatives
	Pure Storage FlashBlade	Qumulo Core
Small Businesses	Amazon S3 Glacier Score 9.1 out of 10	Amazon S3 Glacier Score 9.1 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies	Azure Blob Storage Score 9.7 out of 10	Azure Blob Storage Score 9.7 out of 10
Enterprises	Azure Blob Storage Score 9.7 out of 10	Azure Blob Storage Score 9.7 out of 10
All Alternatives	View all alternatives	View all alternatives

User Ratings
	Pure Storage FlashBlade	Qumulo Core
Likelihood to Recommend	8.4 (0 ratings)	10.0 (0 ratings)
Usability	8.2 (0 ratings)	- (0 ratings)
Support Rating	8.2 (0 ratings)	10.0 (0 ratings)

User Testimonials
	Pure Storage FlashBlade	Qumulo Core
Likelihood to Recommend	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. Incentivized Chirag Deol Chief Marketing Officer Read full review	Qumulo is great for media and entertainment companies, that need simple and easy management of a NAS. The product can also scale and be sized to larger shops too. The support that comes with it also can act as an extension of internal IT. Their support is always watching the box when it phones home with hardware errors or if it would go offline. Qumulo is not initially set up well-running virtual workloads, while Vmware supports NFS, some settings need to be adjusted on Qumulo to allow for upgrades to happen while virtual machines are running Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Pros	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. Incentivized Michael Cannella Enterprise Cloud Architect Read full review	Support, they offer a slack based support which is fast and incredibly helpful. Fast releases, they release new features every 2 weeks and actively seek out improvement ideas from end-users. NFS and SMB co-existent support through mapping permissions allows mixed end users to connect through there native protocol. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Cons	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. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review	Admin users are not able to be tied to SSO or LDAP accounts. At the start there was no RBAC but this has since been addressed. While there is incredible analytics, there is no native way to get historical trends by volume or user. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Usability	Good API, multi-protocol support is great. Edward Hammond Principal Solutions Architect Read full review	No answers on this topic
Support Rating	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. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review	Their Slack-based support is like nothing I have experienced. They are fast, helpful, and willing to go the extra mile, even when an issue is not clearly their's to solve. They are committed to your success. The engineers on the Slack channel are oftentimes the engineers that programmed the very same feature you are asking questions about or having issues with. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Alternatives Considered	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. Incentivized Alexander Cooper RPA Developer Read full review	Qumulo was not the least expensive but we were blown away by support offered and pre-sales support to ensure questions were answered. Our main challenges were mixed end-user platforms and a diverse set of use cases on those end-user computers. Having the dual access to volumes, over NFS and SMB, helps us greatly in this area. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
Return on Investment	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. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review	Reduced cost in support and upgrade times compared to old fiber San. Allows the Service Desk to focus on other things since permissions and access are simplified. Very easy and bandwidth efficient replication allows us to comply with DR. Incentivized Verified User Anonymous Read full review
ScreenShots