NFS VS Pure Storage
As of 30 October 2026, Pure Storage is named by 170 companies and NFS by 285; NFS skews to companies under 200 people (38% vs 27%), Pure Storage to companies over 1,000 (47% vs 35%).
As of 30 October 2026 · refreshed daily · counts move as websites, DNS and career sites are re-read.
The website-and-DNS footprint is not comparable between a marketing suite and a CRM: NFS's script and mail records show on hundreds of thousands of small sites, Pure Storage rarely leaves a trace outside its own apps. Compare on the job-posting numbers; use the footprint for reach.
- NFS: 2–200 employees
- 38%
- Pure Storage: 2–200 employees
- 27%
- NFS: 1,000+ employees
- 35%
- Pure Storage: 1,000+ employees
- 47%
- Postings per company, 90 days
- 3.1 · 3.1
- Website or DNS footprint
- 0 · 0
Who chooses which
Share of each tool's companies in every segment. "Leans" marks a gap of more than two points.
| Segment | NFS | share | Pure Storage | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-employed | 4 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| 2-10 employees | 15 | 5% | 5 | 3% | NFS |
| 11-50 employees | 31 | 11% | 15 | 9% | NFS |
| 51-200 employees | 63 | 22% | 26 | 15% | NFS |
| 201-500 employees | 41 | 14% | 25 | 15% | even |
| 501-1000 employees | 30 | 11% | 19 | 11% | even |
| 1001-5000 employees | 49 | 17% | 43 | 25% | Pure Storage |
| 5001-10000 employees | 13 | 5% | 16 | 9% | Pure Storage |
| 10,001+ employees | 39 | 14% | 21 | 12% | even |
| Segment | NFS | share | Pure Storage | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technology & software | 155 | 54% | 74 | 44% | NFS |
| Manufacturing & industry | 45 | 16% | 28 | 16% | even |
| Business & finance services | 38 | 13% | 35 | 21% | Pure Storage |
| Public, community & associations | 9 | 3% | 5 | 3% | even |
| Consumer services & leisure | 9 | 3% | 3 | 2% | even |
| Media & content | 6 | 2% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Utilities & infrastructure | 6 | 2% | 4 | 2% | even |
| Health care | 5 | 2% | 6 | 4% | even |
| Automotive | 3 | 1% | 2 | 1% | even |
| Commerce & trade | 3 | 1% | 4 | 2% | even |
| Agriculture & forestry | 2 | 1% | 1 | 1% | even |
| Property & construction | 2 | 1% | 3 | 2% | even |
| Transport, logistics & rental | – | – | 3 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | NFS | share | Pure Storage | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 188 | 66% | 119 | 70% | Pure Storage |
| United Kingdom | 18 | 6% | 8 | 5% | even |
| Germany | 14 | 5% | 9 | 5% | even |
| Canada | 6 | 2% | 5 | 3% | even |
| India | 5 | 2% | 2 | 1% | even |
| Italy | 5 | 2% | 3 | 2% | even |
| Netherlands | 5 | 2% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| France | 4 | 1% | 4 | 2% | even |
| Belgium | 3 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Switzerland | 3 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Spain | 3 | 1% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Poland | 3 | 1% | 2 | 1% | even |
| United Arab Emirates | – | – | 3 | 2% | outside top 12 |
| Austria | – | – | 2 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Australia | – | – | 2 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Singapore | – | – | 2 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Segment | NFS | share | Pure Storage | share | Leans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IT operations & business systems | 570 | 44% | 327 | 49% | Pure Storage |
| Software engineering | 210 | 16% | 42 | 6% | NFS |
| Sales | 94 | 7% | 74 | 11% | Pure Storage |
| Engineering (non-software) | 77 | 6% | 53 | 8% | Pure Storage |
| Data & AI | 45 | 3% | 7 | 1% | NFS |
| Customer service & success | 34 | 3% | 10 | 1% | even |
| Product, program & project management | 12 | 1% | 11 | 2% | even |
| Finance & accounting | 8 | 1% | 4 | 1% | even |
| Logistics warehouse and transport | 6 | 0% | 4 | 1% | even |
| Quality, safety & environment | 6 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Legal, compliance & risk | 5 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Construction and civil | 3 | 0% | – | – | outside top 12 |
| Unclassified | – | – | 9 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| General management & consulting | – | – | 4 | 1% | outside top 12 |
| Research and science | – | – | 4 | 1% | outside top 12 |
The companies behind each column
Companies using NFS →
Companies using Pure Storage →
storage systems ranked →
Quote the sentence with the date and the link. The numbers change daily; the link always shows the current ones.
Pure Storage is named by 170 companies in job postings and NFS by 285; 46 name both. (Breaknorm, 30 October 2026, https://breaknorm.co/compare/nfs-vs-pure-storage)
Read from the source, not self-reported
Every number on this page can be traced to a page we crawled or a posting we read. Full methodology →
- Job postingsRead hourly from career sites. A tool counts when the employer's own text names it as the team's system; both tools can count for one company.
- Website and DNSScripts and embeds on the company's pages, plus SPF, DKIM, MX and CNAME records of its domain that point at the vendor.
- SegmentsCountry, size and industry from the company profile built from its website.
- Not a reviewNo ratings, prices or feature claims. For those, read the vendors.
NFS vs Pure Storage: questions
Which is more used, NFS or Pure Storage?
By companies naming it in their own job postings, NFS (285) over Pure Storage (170). By website-and-DNS footprint, Pure Storage (0 vs 0), because its scripts and mail records sit on many small company sites.
Who chooses NFS?
38% of NFS companies have 2 to 200 employees, against 27% for Pure Storage. 35% of NFS companies have over 1,000 employees, against 47% for Pure Storage.
Do companies run both?
46 companies name both in their postings, usually NFS in marketing and Pure Storage in sales, or during a migration.
Where do these numbers come from?
From the employer's own text in job postings read hourly from career sites, and from scripts found on company websites in our crawl. No vendor data, no surveys.
Get either list your way
The same data as a search, over MCP and the API, as bulk files, or pushed to you as it changes.
Every company on either tool,
with the person who owns it
Filter on NFS or Pure Storage. Start free, no card.