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

NetApp FAS Series vs Oracle Sun ZFS Storage Appliance comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 2, 2025

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

NetApp FAS Series
Ranking in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network)
1st
Average Rating
8.8
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
110
Ranking in other categories
Deduplication Software (4th), NAS (3rd)
Oracle Sun ZFS Storage Appl...
Ranking in Modular SAN (Storage Area Network)
9th
Average Rating
7.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.6
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) category, the mindshare of NetApp FAS Series is 10.7%, down from 17.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Oracle Sun ZFS Storage Appliance is 6.1%, up from 4.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
NetApp FAS Series10.7%
Oracle Sun ZFS Storage Appliance6.1%
Other83.2%
Modular SAN (Storage Area Network)
 

Featured Reviews

Srikanth Purushothaman - PeerSpot reviewer
DIRECTOR at Vellore Online Systems
Has supported long-term data protection and backup while requiring better part availability and pricing options
For monitoring purposes, we normally use flash access storage exclusively. We utilize a hybrid system because we need performance, combining NL-SAS for the volume and SAS flash to use as a fast cache system that provides more IOPS. We normally implement RAID 10, which we prefer over RAID 6's n plus 2 combinations. We utilize it for data redundancy, even with write intensity on. Regarding the unified storage architecture for NetApp FAS Series, we normally opt for exclusivity unless budget constraints exist. Our IOPS are very high, reaching somewhere about 50k to 150k or 1.150k. The high performance ensures minimal latency. An advantage we've seen with NetApp FAS Series is that snapshots provide very rapid backup and fast recovery. We basically use snapshots for data protection as first-level protection, with deduplication between the two storages serving as second-level protection.
RM
IT Consultant at a manufacturing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
A stable unified storage system that enables quick access to data
The main thing Oracle can improve is the cost. It would be better if Oracle opened up the system to enable integration with other vendors. Whether it's the database, application server, or storage appliance, they should make it easy to integrate them. They need to open up more to ensure that it can work in any environment and IT ecosystem.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It's an easy product to use that is stable and has good performance."
"It has been many years since we have had an outage due to storage because of FAS."
"The FAS series is very stable."
"The most important features are SnapVault, Snapshots, and SnapMirror."
"We have used some solutions like Hitachi, Dell, and EMC, but NetApp has more flexibility and we decided to stay with NetApp."
"Snap mirror as it gives us a way to snap to our two disaster recovery sites to instantaneously bring up VMs Dedupe helps us to save a lot on OS files for VMs"
"The integration with cloud environments has benefited my customers' storage strategy by providing cloud volume ONTAP."
"Just do it. Chances are the functionality that comes with the ONTAP software will be better than other products at a similar price."
"Oracle Sun ZFS Storage Appliance is a very stable and durable product that's very strong and mature."
"Very good analytics Very easy to configure."
"I like its storage capacity, quick access to the data, speed, and overall storage management."
 

Cons

"Regarding the stability of NetApp FAS Series, I would rate it seven or seven point five because there are frequent panic messages."
"The product must support more drives."
"Technical support needs to be improved, as there are no longer partners in our country."
"It could improve by better integrating with other technologies like VMware, as there are some version conflicts."
"NetApp could improve costs while making the solution more straightforward to use and deploy."
"The only improvement to this solution that I can propose is for NetApp to make the price more attractive."
"I have not given the FAS a perfect rating because the All Flash Array is probably going to beat it down, in terms of performance."
"NetApp FAS Series should introduce an FTP application for the broadcast and post-production market."
"The main thing Oracle can improve is the cost. It would be better if Oracle opened up the system to enable integration with other vendors. Whether it's the database, application server, or storage appliance, they should make it easy to integrate them. They need to open up more to ensure that it can work in any environment and IT ecosystem."
"Uptime. We had some crashes here and there."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"NetApp FAS Series' pricing is competitive."
"The scalability is pretty good, but it's too expensive."
"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."
"I don't recall the price, but in general, pricing can always be better."
"The only area that could be improved is to lower prices for their All Flash FAS."
"There are products available in market with comparatively lower costs."
"It's not cheap, but at the same time, it's also inexpensive. It's somewhere in between."
"It is a one-time license charge for NetApp FAS Series to run and we pay annually for upgrades and support."
"The price could be better. We have many competing products now like Huawei and Dell EMC, and these are slightly cheaper."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Modular SAN (Storage Area Network) solutions are best for your needs.
902,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
13%
Computer Software Company
9%
Construction Company
7%
Construction Company
13%
Healthcare Company
10%
Insurance Company
10%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business31
Midsize Enterprise38
Large Enterprise58
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Which SAN product would you choose: IBM FlashSystem (FS9500) vs PureFlash Array/X NVMe vs PureFlash Array/XL NVMe?
Have you considered a NetApp FAS Storage for your NAS needs? I am sure it fits very well.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for NetApp FAS Series?
I do not handle the pricing part of NetApp FAS Series since it is managed by the sales team.
What needs improvement with NetApp FAS Series?
There is room for improvement when it comes to response time and first-level support quality. If a new feature needs to be added, it takes some time because it is altogether a new development; othe...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

No data available
Sun ZFS Storage Appliance
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Children's Hospital Central California, Plex Systems, PDF PNI Digital Media, Denver Broncos, PDF KSM Legal, Clayton Companies, Virginia Community College
Translational Genomics Research Institute, Nara Institute of Science and Technology, CyberSolutions Inc., Y-Telecom, First Alliance Bank Zambia Limited, AZ Sint-Jan Brugge-Oostende, Mutlinet Pakistan, TDC A/S, Digi-Key Corporation, Thurgau Cantonal Bank
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp FAS Series vs. Oracle Sun ZFS Storage Appliance and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,270 professionals have used our research since 2012.