No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Hitachi NAS Platform vs IBM FlashSystem comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Nov 7, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Hitachi NAS Platform
Ranking in NAS
13th
Average Rating
7.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.0
Number of Reviews
12
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM FlashSystem
Ranking in NAS
9th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
113
Ranking in other categories
Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) (4th), All-Flash Storage (12th)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the NAS category, the mindshare of Hitachi NAS Platform is 2.5%, down from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM FlashSystem is 6.0%, down from 12.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
NAS Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
IBM FlashSystem6.0%
Hitachi NAS Platform2.5%
Other91.5%
NAS
 

Featured Reviews

Mir Gulzar Ahmed - PeerSpot reviewer
IT Manager at Synergy Computers
Needs standalone functionality but provides a robust NAS solution for existing SAN environments
I would suggest that Hitachi make a NAS box that can work independently, without relying on SAN connectivity. The current solution only suits customers who already have a Hitachi SAN environment and want to add NAS protocols like NFS and CIFS. It's not suitable for customers without an existing SAN, as they would first need to acquire the SAN infrastructure before adding NAS functionality.
OmarIsmail1 - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Technical Specialist II at Clicks Group
Offers high performance and dependable support for fast storage needs
The most valuable feature of IBM FlashSystem is its robust back code. When integrated properly into the environment and configured according to the guidelines, it provides a very solid infrastructure that does the job on demand. Additionally, IBM FlashSystem offers competitive pricing and reliable performance. The hardware is dependable, ensuring that it functions effectively when the setup is done correctly.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The product’s technical support services are good."
"Hitachi NAS has improved my storage operations significantly."
"The product has valuable features for data migration."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to handle a high number of users while maintaining both stability and performance."
"The pricing of this solution is good, which is an advantage that positions this product well."
"Hitachi NAS Platform is very stable."
"It creates a NAS environment on top of Hitachi SAN, which facilitates customers who need NAS protocols along with their existing SAN portfolio."
"The reliability and scalability of Hitachi NAS Platform are valuable features."
"User friendly interface Robust hardware Good support"
"The most valuable features are performance and reliability; there are many functions, so the whole product is good."
"We've found the solution to be very stable so far."
"User friendly management interface."
"The stability's been rock solid."
"One of the most valuable features is that it's very easy to use and configure. It used to be more difficult, but now it's almost flawless."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and performance."
"Biggest return is the easy migration and upgrade path as well as the scalability options, with IBM adding compression and deduplication in its portfolio, as well as garbage collection and space reclamation."
 

Cons

"We have had two stability issues: We had a bad software version that used to randomly crash both nodes in a cluster File system corruption after activating in DR site"
"I do not like Hitachi NAS because it's an old-school NAS solution, compared to the other, newer-type solutions such as Isilon from Dell or Qumulo."
"I would suggest that Hitachi make a NAS box that can work independently, without relying on SAN connectivity."
"We would like to have a more economical version of this solution that is suitable for use with a mid-range scale, such as one that can handle between 35,000 and 50,000 users."
"The Hitachi NAS Platform is too complicated, not simple, and not cost-effective, sometimes being inappropriate for most situations."
"There are insufficient improvements in certain areas."
"Hitachi NAS Platform needs to improve by offering a unified storage solution. Due to budget constraints in regions like Southeast Asia, customers prefer a single machine that can handle all problems, which the current platform does not provide."
"Hitachi NAS Platform's pricing could be reduced. It is high compared to other competitors."
"They don't offer subscription-based payments. You pay for the license."
"We have not had a good experience with this platform."
"Product support is restricted to IBM only. It must be decentralized to IBM partners as well."
"One area for improvement is in the GUI, where host clusters are not properly dealt with. With Hypervisor host clusters, all hosts must see the same volumes in the same order. Using the concept of a “host-group” has been around (even with IBM) for many years, so why not with the V7000?"
"With regards to the IBM V7000 storage system, where we have multiple tiers of storage, a heat map would show I/O distribution across the tiers of storage."
"The solution's infrastructure technology level could be PCI Express 5 instead of PCI Express 4 for the next version."
"The stability is not very good."
"This solution could be improved by offering greater amounts of storage."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is a highly-priced product."
"This solution is priced well and there are no costs in addition to the standard licensing fees."
"Hitachi NAS Platform’s price is high and depends on SCSI disc capacity."
"Costs are based on the features and it is a considerable amount."
"I would rate the solution's pricing six to seven out of ten."
"I would rate the pricing of this solution a four out of five."
"The pricing has been very competitive for the last few years. IBM got to the point where they changed the pricing model and we feel very comfortable with the pricing. It's very competitive. Over the last two years, IBM has been coming up with all kinds of interesting promos, especially for the SMB systems. That makes it very competitive price-wise and in terms of performance..."
"My customers got the IBM FlashSystem bundle offer. It was a one-time purchase for three years of service. The price would depend on the storage size and could reach between $25,000 to $55,000."
"I'd rate the basic licensing and the Virtualize software a ten out of ten, and the extra Spectrum and other an eight out of ten."
"For a yearly license, it is about $100,000. There are no additional costs. The entire system is included."
"IBM V7000 has a new license and price structure which provides intuitive licensing based on the functions customers wish to enable and use the most."
"The cost of the IBM FlashSystem is lower than the HPE solution."
"The cost is pretty high in terms of licensing. We pay at least $100,000 USD in licensing fees for the storage."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which NAS solutions are best for your needs.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Comms Service Provider
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise2
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business47
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise60
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Hiachi NAS Platform?
The pricing for the Hitachi NAS is higher compared to other NAS solutions since the NAS protocol is provided on top of the existing SAN environment, requiring an additional device for NAS functiona...
What needs improvement with Hiachi NAS Platform?
For the Hitachi NAS Platform, the tools are basic and don't provide much insight. They can continue to improve the interface to keep it up-to-date, and maybe add some new features or better ways of...
What is your primary use case for Hiachi NAS Platform?
We sell the Hitachi NAS Platform, and it is the best product for our customers. I sell it to banks, telecom companies, and other enterprises at the enterprise level. We have a cluster with Hitachi ...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for IBM FlashSystem?
The pricing is high; storage solutions are always expensive. I do not know if the price needs to be reviewed, but it is worth considering.
What needs improvement with IBM FlashSystem?
As far as I know, IBM FlashSystem has already improved, but I do not see room for improvement. It is simple to use and manage via SVC, simple to configure, and even for the zoning, I do not see imp...
What is your primary use case for IBM FlashSystem?
We are not working with Object Storage or Storage Protect; we are working with SAN storage and LUN storage. I am a consultant assigned to a customer in France. We are working with SVC in regard to ...
 

Also Known As

Hitachi NAS
IBM Storwize
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Intersect Australia
Celero, Friedhelm Loh Group, Clarks, Mingkang Natregro Health Food Group, Sofia, Etisalat Fights Fraud, UF Health Shands Hospital, Generali, Elecon Engineering Company Limited, Ventiv , Technology, CPFL Energia, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., SciQuest, Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated, Paddy Power, Kelsey-Seybold Clinic, Interconnect Services, Severstal IP-Only AB, PVU Group GmbH
Find out what your peers are saying about Hitachi NAS Platform vs. IBM FlashSystem and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,747 professionals have used our research since 2012.