Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Pure Storage FlashBlade vs SwiftStack [EOL] comparison

Pure Storage and NVIDIA are both solutions in the File and Object Storage category. Additionally, 97% of Pure Storage users are willing to recommend the solution, compared to 100% of NVIDIA users who would recommend it.
Pure Storage FlashBlade
Read 37 Pure Storage FlashBlade reviews
  • 4,252 Views
  • 3,089 Comparison Views
97% willing to recommend
SwiftStack [EOL]
Read 8 SwiftStack [EOL] reviews
    100% willing to recommend
     

    Comparison Buyer's Guide

    Download the report
    Executive Summary
    We performed a comparison between Pure Storage FlashBlade and SwiftStack [EOL] based on real PeerSpot user reviews.

    Find out what your peers are saying about MinIO, Red Hat, Dell Technologies and others in File and Object Storage.

    DOWNLOAD THE COMPLETE REPORT
    To learn more, read our detailed File and Object Storage Report (Updated: March 2025).
    Buyer's Guide
    File and Object Storage
    March 2025
    Download the complete report
    Helped 845,485 peers since 2012

    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

    Pure Storage FlashBlade
    Average Rating
    8.8
    Reviews Sentiment
    7.9
    Number of Reviews
    37
    Ranking in other categories
    All-Flash Storage (17th), File and Object Storage (6th)
    SwiftStack [EOL]
    Average Rating
    8.6
    Number of Reviews
    8
    Ranking in other categories
    No ranking in other categories
     

    Featured Reviews

    Eric Black - PeerSpot reviewer
    The ability to leverage multi-tenancy along with immutability is a huge benefit for us
    The only thing I feel FlashBlade is missing is the SOS API. If it had SOS API, that would put it well over the top. Veeam Backup specifically has started to streamline their API, and they are doing that with SOS API. They have optimized it. Any of the S3 devices out there that support this SOS API can have far more API calls at once. On our side, that translates to better restoration. With SOS API, it can leverage far more restorations at a single given time or read from the device in simple terms. That results in maximizing the output and throughput from the device itself.
    Read full review
    Scientif48eb - PeerSpot reviewer
    It has helped us with the ability to distribute data to different data centers
    * You can bring your own drives, which don't have to be certified. This usually means that they cost significantly more to insert a certified drive with the manufacturer who is selling you your solution. * It is platform independent, so you bring your own hardware. It doesn't matter if you get a Dell EMC, HPE, IBM, etc. Its hardware agnostic capabilities are great. Dell EMC, HPE, and Lenovo are obviously big players, but sometimes they don't have the best prices. You are not tied to any one particular vendor, and it gives you great flexibility as far as pricing is concerned. You can go out, and say, "Give me the most capacity in the smallest number of use spaces." Sometimes that's not the big vendors, it's the small vendors who provide this. * The forward thinking in their cloud solution creates a global namespace across the major public clouds. It allows you to go from on-premise to the cloud seamlessly. They have made it easier to move data between the different cloud vendors and move those flows from on-premise to the cloud, then from the cloud back to on-premise. That freedom that they facilitate is hard to put a price on, because it gives you flexibility. * The metadata search capabilities are something that we look forward to being able to use, though we haven't fully had a chance to get into them. However, in the life sciences area, it could be tremendously beneficial. * Ease of operation: We got it up and running, and it's been solid. We can upgrade the capacity of our drives at any point in time. * The flexibility that the solution provides, both for hardware and on-premise, then to the cloud. That flexibility is great.
    Read full review

    Quotes from Members

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

    Pros

    "The most valuable feature of this solution is performance."
    "We have seen a reduction in the total cost of ownership by around 20%."
    "The onboarding and integrated monitoring tools are pretty good."
    "It's very easy-to-use."
    "The initial setup is pretty quick."
    "The most valuable feature is Safe Mode."
    "The initial setup is pretty easy and simple."
    "The performance of FlashBlade is excellent. It does not necessarily leverage the SOS API that some of the newer products leverage, but I found its speed pretty much on par and comparable. It is fast, and it does what it is supposed to do."
    More Pure Storage FlashBlade pros
    "SwiftStack is also quite flexible when it comes to hardware. It depends, of course, on the use case and the kind of hardware you want to buy. But you have quite a bit of choice in hardware. The SwiftStack software itself does not impose anything on you."
    "In terms of the hardware flexibility, with SwiftStack not being a hardware company, I literally buy any hardware that's the least expensive, from any vendor... from a flexibility standpoint, I think it's fantastic. I can go to anybody, anywhere - any vendor - and get my hardware."
    "The graphs are most valuable. They have a lot of graphs and reports that you can run to see what's happening in the background to configure OpenStack Swift."
    "The most valuable feature is its versatility. We use 1space and we can use it for almost anything: for our cloud service, for backups of VMs."
    "The scalability is phenomenal. It seems infinite, as long as you put enough storage in place, add enough nodes."
    "The SwiftStack Controller, which is the web UI, provides out of band management. This has been one of the best features of it. It allows us to be able to do upgrades and look at performance metrics. It is a top feature and reason to choose the product."
    "The performance is good. It is a secondary storage platform designed for archive and backup, so performance for the right use cases is very good. We have been pretty happy in that regard."
    "The biggest feature, the biggest reason we went with SwiftStack, rather than deploying our own model with OpenStack Swift, was their deployment model. That was really the primary point in our purchase decision, back when we initially deployed. It took my installation time from days to hours, for deployment in our environment, versus deploying OpenStack Swift ourselves, manually."
    More SwiftStack [EOL] pros
     

    Cons

    "I would like to see better integration."
    "On our dedupe during our initial buy, we were expecting a number a little higher like 4x. However, we are getting about 3.6. While it is close enough, it doesn't quite hit the numbers. So, this has been a challenge."
    "In the realm of micro-services, I think that Pure Storage can do well if they start getting in there and making their arrays more micro-services ready."
    "The feature that we're waiting on is better integration with the cell services."
    "File storage needs a lot of improvement. Mainframe connectivity also needs improvement because it requires additional components to be integrated with Pure Storage FlashBlade. If you want to keep your backup data, then this becomes an even more expensive solution because Pure Storage FlashBlade will not be able to meet your backup needs."
    "I would like to see more monitoring capability included in the next release of this solution."
    "An area for improvement in Pure Storage FlashBlade is its price. It could be reduced. The technical support for Pure Storage FlashBlade also needs improvement. It used to be good, with more experienced engineers. Nowadays, it isn't, and it takes longer for support to solve problems."
    "I have not seen ROI."
    More Pure Storage FlashBlade cons
    "I would like to see better client integrations, support for a broader client library. SwiftStack could be a little bit more involved in the client side: Python, Java, C, etc."
    "[One] thing that I've been looking for, for years as an end user and customer, for any object store, including SwiftStack, is some type of automated method for data archiving. Something where you would have a metadata tagging policy engine and a data mover all built into a single system that would automatically be able to take your data off your primary and put it into an object store in a non-proprietary way - which is key."
    "The file access needs improvement. The NFS was rolled out as a single service. It needs to be fully integrated into the proxy in a highly available fashion, like the regular proxy access is. I know it's on the roadmap."
    "They should provide a more concise hardware calculator when you're putting your capacity together."
    "At the moment we are using Erasure coding in an 8+4 setting. What would be nice is if, for some standard configurations like 15+4 and 8+4, there were more versatility so we could, for example, select 8+6, or the like."
    "The biggest room for improvement is the maturity of the proxyFS solution. That piece of code is relatively new, so most of our issues have been around the proxyFS."
    "It's very well done for what it's supposed to do, and I don't have anything to add, but I would like them to keep it available to the public. SwiftStack is going out of the market. NVIDIA purchased SwiftStack a couple of years ago, and they won't be making it available to the public anymore. Our license is up to March 31st."
    "On the controller features, there needs to be a bit more clean up of the user interface. There are a lot of options available on the GUI which might be better organized or compartmentalized. There are times when you are going through the user interface and you have to look around for where the setting may be. A little bit more attention to the organization of the user interface would be helpful."
     

    Pricing and Cost Advice

    "Support is a separate line item. Support is a different cost, but whatever your support is now, that's what you're going to pay forever. If your support's $100 today, six years from now it's $100. It doesn't fluctuate unless you upgrade it, or change it, etc."
    "Our licensing is renewed annually."
    "I feel that the price could always be lowered."
    "Licensing fees are paid yearly."
    "I understand that it is competitively priced compared to other brands."
    "In my opinion, we have paid the right price for the product. I don't think that it is too much or too little."
    "The price could be cheaper."
    "The price is a little high."
    More Pure Storage FlashBlade pricing and cost advice
    "COST_SAVING; We have had a 40 to 50 percent reduction in CAPEX on the acquisition of new hardware, which is probably conservative."
    "It's pricey for us because we're a nonprofit. I'm not privy to any amount or cost, but I have been told that it is pricey. There are no costs in addition to the licensing fees, and it seems to come with the support."
    "All in, with hardware and everything else - and I hate to say a dollar amount because it's been awhile since I computed it - I know I'm under the $300 to $500 per terabyte mark. I call that my "all in" price, which has replications built in and protections built in."
    "We are able to dynamically grow storage at a lower cost. We can repurpose hardware and buy commodity hardware. There is a huge cost savings, on average $100,000 a year compared to traditional storage for what we have at our size."
    "We have had a 40 to 50 percent reduction in CAPEX on the acquisition of new hardware, which is probably conservative."
    "Dollar per gigabyte, it costs us more because we are storing more. However, if you look at it from a cost per gigabyte perspective, we have dropped our costs significantly."
    "One of their advantages of being a commercial open source platform is, for the scale that they offer, the pricing is pretty competitive."
    "We find the pricing rather steep. Of course, you get quality for your money, that's absolutely true... [But] when you look at the prices of the licensing and the prices of your hardware, it's quite substantial."
    More SwiftStack [EOL] pricing and cost advice
    report
    See which vendors are best for you
    Use our free recommendation engine to learn which File and Object Storage solutions are best for your needs.
    See recommendations
    845,485 professionals have used our research since 2012.
     

    Top Industries

    By visitors reading reviews
    Educational Organization
    37%
    Computer Software Company
    11%
    Financial Services Firm
    8%
    Manufacturing Company
    8%
    Computer Software Company
    20%
    Manufacturing Company
    16%
    Financial Services Firm
    9%
    Educational Organization
    8%
     

    Company Size

    By reviewers
    Large Enterprise
    Midsize Enterprise
    Small Business
     

    Questions from the Community

    What do you like most about Pure Storage FlashBlade?
    The tool's most valuable feature is its fast performance, especially in handling snapshots. It helps during power outages when we need to quickly move data between different data centers. It ensure...
    See all answers
    What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Pure Storage FlashBlade?
    The pricing for FlashBlade is between cheap and moderate. FlashBlade is worth the money due to the experience and performance it delivers, including quick response times.
    See all answers
    What needs improvement with Pure Storage FlashBlade?
    Its configuration should be easier. There should be easier language for the configuration.
    See all answers
    Ask a question
    Earn 20 points
     

    Comparisons

    Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
    Dell PowerScale (Isilon) vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
    Compared 21% of the time
    VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
    VAST Data vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
    Compared 12% of the time
    Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
    Red Hat Ceph Storage vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
    Compared 11% of the time
    MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
    MinIO vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
    Compared 11% of the time
    Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade Logo
    Pure Storage FlashArray vs Pure Storage FlashBlade
    Compared 8% of the time
    More Pure Storage FlashBlade Competitors
    MinIO vs SwiftStack [EOL] Logo
    MinIO vs SwiftStack [EOL]
    Compared 59% of the time
    Dell ECS vs SwiftStack [EOL] Logo
    Dell ECS vs SwiftStack [EOL]
    Compared 20% of the time
    Red Hat Ceph Storage vs SwiftStack [EOL] Logo
    Red Hat Ceph Storage vs SwiftStack [EOL]
    Compared 11% of the time
    Peaxy vs SwiftStack [EOL] Logo
    Peaxy vs SwiftStack [EOL]
    Compared 10% of the time
    More SwiftStack [EOL] Competitors
     

    Product Reports

    Buyer's Guide
    Pure Storage FlashBlade
    March 2025
    Pure Storage FlashBlade reportDownload Pure Storage FlashBlade product report
    Buyer's Guide
    SwiftStack [EOL]
    March 2025
    SwiftStack [EOL] reportDownload SwiftStack [EOL] product report
     

    Overview

    FlashBlade is the industry’s most advanced scale-out storage for unstructured data, powered by a modern, massively parallel architecture to consolidate complex data silos (like backup appliances and data lakes) and accelerate tomorrow’s discoveries and insights.

    Pure Storage

    SwiftStack focuses on handling large-scale unstructured data, providing software-defined storage, and boosting data scalability and durability.

    SwiftStack is known for its proficiency in object storage, seamless workflow integration, and robust support for multi-cloud environments. Its architecture ensures high-performance data access, making it ideal for big data analytics, media asset management, and backup tasks. Users value its flexibility, ease of integration, and strong performance. The solution's high availability and efficient storage capabilities contribute to its strengths. However, areas needing improvement include customer support response time, initial setup guidance, and enhanced scalability during high-demand periods.

    What are SwiftStack's Most Important Features?

    • Robust Scalability: Easily manages growing data volumes
    • Multi-cloud Support: Seamless integration across cloud environments
    • Seamless Data Management: Efficiently handles large datasets
    • High Availability: Ensures data is accessible whenever needed
    • Open-Source: Customizable and flexible with extensive API support

    What Benefits Should Users Look For?

    • Enhanced Performance: Handles demanding workloads efficiently
    • Easy Integration: Adapts well with existing systems and workflows
    • High Durability: Ensures long-term data storage and protection
    • Cost-Effectiveness: Reduces overall storage costs
    • Scalability: Grows with organizational needs

    In industries like media management and big data analytics, SwiftStack’s capabilities in high-performance data access and multi-cloud support facilitate efficient data handling. Backup and archival solutions also benefit from its robust storage and high availability features.

    NVIDIA
     

    Sample Customers

    ServiceNow, Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport, Dominos, Man AHL
    Pac-12 Networks, Georgia Institute of Technology, Budd Van Lines
    Buyer's Guide
    File and Object Storage
    March 2025
    Download Free Report
    Find out what your peers are saying about MinIO, Red Hat, Dell Technologies and others in File and Object Storage. Updated: March 2025.
    DOWNLOAD NOW
    845,485 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    See our list of best File and Object Storage vendors.

    We monitor all File and Object Storage 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.