COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Apr. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Purchase Commitments In the normal course of business, we make commitments with our contract manufacturers and OEMs to ensure them a minimum level of financial consideration for their investment in our joint solutions. These commitments are based on revenue targets or on-hand inventory and non-cancelable purchase orders for non-standard components. We record a charge related to these items when we determine that it is probable a loss will be incurred and we are able to estimate the amount of the loss. Our historical charges have not been material. As of April 30, 2020, we had up to approximately $76.9 million of non-cancelable purchase obligations and other commitments pertaining to our daily business operations, and up to approximately $121.5 million in the form of guarantees to certain of our contract manufacturers and OEMs. Legal Proceedings Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against us and two of our officers. The initial complaints generally alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. In July 2019, the court consolidated the actions into a single action, and appointed a lead plaintiff, who then filed a consolidated amended complaint (the "Original Complaint"). The action was brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock between November 30, 2017 and May 30, 2019, inclusive. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the Original Complaint, and the court granted that motion on March 9, 2020, while providing the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 17, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (the "Current Complaint"), again naming us and two of our officers as defendants. The Current Complaint alleges the same class period, includes many of the same factual allegations as the Original Complaint, and again alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5. The Current Complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Current Complaint on May 22, 2020, and a hearing before the court has been scheduled for August 12, 2020, during which the parties will argue their positions on the motion. This case is in the very early stages and we are not able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to the Current Complaint. Beginning on July 1, 2019, several shareholder derivative complaints were filed in each of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo and the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara, naming (i) fourteen of Nutanix’s current and former officers and directors as defendants and (ii) the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaints generally alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment, all based on the same general underlying allegations that are contained in the securities class actions described above. The Superior Court complaints additionally alleged insider trading and violation of California Corporations Code Section 25402, and the Santa Clara County Superior Court complaints further included additional claims for "abuse of control" and "gross mismanagement." On January 7, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the North District of California consolidated the federal actions and, on March 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation designating a lead plaintiff and deeming the lead plaintiff’s original complaint as the operative complaint in the matter (the "Operative Complaint"). On April 22, 2020, (i) the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Operative Complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim, and (ii) we filed a motion to dismiss the Operative Complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to make a demand on our Board of Directors before filing the Operative Complaint. On May 22, 2020, the plaintiffs proposed to the defendants that they file an amended complaint rather than an opposition to the motions to dismiss, and the defendants agreed to that. The parties will submit a proposed schedule to the court for the filing of an amended complaint and the defendants' response to it. In August 2019, the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara consolidated the Santa Clara derivative actions into a single action and, in January 2020, the court stayed the consolidated Santa Clara action in deference to the federal derivative actions described above. On September 17, 2019, the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo granted the plaintiff’s request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The remaining derivative cases are in the very early stages and we are not able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to those complaints. We are not currently a party to any other legal proceedings that we believe to be material to our business or financial condition. From time to time, we may become party to various litigation matters and subject to claims that arise in the ordinary course of business.