Industry Insights 11 min read

Why Did Global Storage M&A Collapse in 2018? A Data‑Driven Industry Insight

The 2018 global storage merger‑and‑acquisition market shrank to just 36 deals—far below the 2006 peak of 104—highlighting a slowdown driven by industry maturity, scarce disruptive startups, and modest transaction values despite a history of multi‑billion‑dollar deals.

Architects' Tech Alliance
Architects' Tech Alliance
Architects' Tech Alliance
Why Did Global Storage M&A Collapse in 2018? A Data‑Driven Industry Insight

Historical Merger Activity Since 1998

Since 1998 we have tracked worldwide storage‑industry M&A, allowing an objective view of long‑term trends. Over the entire period the average number of deals per year is 63, with the lowest year being 2002 (45 deals) and the record year 2006 (104 deals).

2018 Merger Landscape

In 2018 only 36 storage deals were announced, a sharp decline from the historic average. The number of deals has been decreasing year‑by‑year since 2013, with a slight uptick in 2016 (54 deals) and 2017 (52 deals). The slowdown is attributed to the sector’s maturity and a lack of revolutionary‑technology startups that would attract buyers.

Only Nutanix acquired three companies (Minjar, Netsil, Frame) in 2018. Of the 36 transactions, only eight disclosed their purchase price; the remaining 28 kept the financial terms private, indicating limited impact on the acquirers’ financial performance.

Known Transaction Values in 2018

Only two 2018 deals exceeded $1 billion, compared with four in 2017 and three in 2016. The largest historic acquisition remains Dell’s $63 billion purchase of EMC in 2015 (both companies are not pure‑play storage vendors). Other notable large deals include Broadcom’s $18.9 billion acquisition of Corning Technology and Bain Capital’s $18 billion purchase of Toshiba’s NAND business in 2017.

Micron’s $1.5 billion acquisition of IM Flash Technologies was another sizable 2018 transaction.

All Storage Deals Over $1 Billion (Historical)

2015: Dell‑EMC – $63 billion

2001: HP‑Compaq – $25 billion

2018: Broadcom‑Corning Technology – $18.9 billion

2017: Bain Capital (with partners)‑Toshiba NAND – $18 billion

2015: Western Digital‑SanDisk – $16 billion

2005: Symantec‑VeriSign – $11 billion

2011: HP‑Autonomy – $10.3 billion

1998: Compaq‑DEC – $9.6 billion

2015: Carlyle & GIC‑VeriSign – $7.4 billion

2009: Oracle‑Sun – $7.4 billion

2013: HPE‑LSI – $6.6 billion

2017: Marvell‑Cavium – $6.0 billion

2016: Broadcom‑Brocade – $5.9 billion

2011: Western Digital‑Hitachi GST – $4.8 billion

2005: Sun‑StorageTek – $4.1 billion

2000: Corning‑Sterling Software – $4.0 billion

2000: Suez Acquisition‑Seagate – $4.0 billion

2006: LSI‑Agere – $4.0 billion

2014: Thoma Bravo‑Riverbed – $3.5 billion

2008: Brocade‑Foundry Networks – $2.6 billion

2012: Micron‑Elpida – $2.5 billion

2012: Dell‑Quest Software – $2.4 billion

2010: HP‑3PAR – $2.35 billion

2015: Microsemi‑PMC‑Sierra – $2.3 billion

2010: EMC‑Isilon – $2.25 billion

2009: EMC‑Data Domain – $2.2 billion

2006: EMC‑RSA – $2.1 billion

2002: Hitachi‑IBM HDD – $2.05 billion

2000: Sun‑Cobalt Networks – $2.0 billion

2004: Marsh & McLennan‑Kroll – $1.9 billion

2006: Seagate‑Maxtor – $1.9 billion

2000: QLogic‑Ancor Communications – $1.7 billion

2003: EMC‑Documentum – $1.7 billion

2016: OpenText‑Dell EMC Content – $1.62 billion

1998: Veritas‑Seagate Software – $1.6 billion

2017: Thoma Bravo‑Caviar Network – $1.6 billion

2006: IBM‑FileNet – $1.6 billion

2006: SanDisk‑msystems – $1.5 billion

2007: Dell‑EqualLogic – $1.4 billion

2011: Seagate‑Samsung HDD – $1.375 billion

2000: Maxtor‑Quantum HDD – $1.3 billion

2003: EMC‑Legato – $1.3 billion

2010: Micron‑Numonyx – $1.27 billion

1996: Corning‑Cheyenne – $1.2 billion

2010: Max Stiegemeier (GCF)‑Division 5 Tech – $1.2 billion

2015: EMC‑Virtustream – $1.2 billion

1999: EMC‑Data General – $1.1 billion

2014: SanDisk‑Fusion‑io – $1.1 billion

2017: HPE‑Nimble Storage – $1.09 billion

1995: Seagate‑Conner Peripherals – $1.0 billion

2016: Cavium‑QLogic – $1.0 billion

Financial Summary of 2018 Known Deals

The eight disclosed 2018 transactions total $21 billion, averaging $2.6 billion per deal—similar to 2017’s $29 billion total but far below the 2016 peak of $92.3 billion (average $6.16 million per deal). Since 1998, the average deal size has risen to $635 million, with cumulative M&A value exceeding $344 billion.

Most Active Acquirers

EMC leads with 79 acquisitions since 1994, including record years 2006‑2007 (23 deals). Dell follows with 18 acquisitions; both have paused buying in the last three years. Other frequent buyers include HPE (20 deals), IBM (21), Seagate (31), and Broadcom (26).

Future Outlook

Consolidation is expected to continue in 2019, albeit at a slower pace, as many listed players face financial strain and startups either get acquired or fail. Storage giants, lacking breakthrough new‑storage technologies, prefer buying innovative startups to gain IP rather than investing heavily in R&D.

Potential hot‑spot areas for future M&A include cloud‑computing storage, software‑defined storage, hyper‑converged systems, and SSD technologies, where numerous companies still seek market traction.

2018 Who Bought Whom?

Source: StorageNewsletter.com

Original Source

Signed-in readers can open the original source through BestHub's protected redirect.

Sign in to view source
Republication Notice

This article has been distilled and summarized from source material, then republished for learning and reference. If you believe it infringes your rights, please contactadmin@besthub.devand we will review it promptly.

storageIndustry analysistechnologyMarket TrendsM&Aacquisitionshistorical data
Architects' Tech Alliance
Written by

Architects' Tech Alliance

Sharing project experiences, insights into cutting-edge architectures, focusing on cloud computing, microservices, big data, hyper-convergence, storage, data protection, artificial intelligence, industry practices and solutions.

0 followers
Reader feedback

How this landed with the community

Sign in to like

Rate this article

Was this worth your time?

Sign in to rate
Discussion

0 Comments

Thoughtful readers leave field notes, pushback, and hard-won operational detail here.