Your question is not bad, it's wrong. Likely coming from the Hadoop side you made the question using Hadoop architecture which is assembly of layered and/or integrated somewhat independent components, each with its own functional spec, configuration and execution environment, etc.
Why is that wrong? Because you wouldn't ask the same question if comparing Hadoop and Oracle or SAP databases, right?
Yes, each counterpart on Aster side matches up with Hadoop stack offering - the difference is with Aster there is no such stack (at least as of 6.x yet). Aster is database and analytical engine matching Hadoop stack functions but not components.
For example, ACT is a command-line utility similar to SQL*Plus for Oracle operating over client/server interface. It's nothing like Hive infrastructure on top of Hadoop. Aster File System comes as complex plug-able functional layer integrated into Aster software - not as independent framework and software that are HDFS and Hadoop.
The most striking difference goes for Aster analytical engine consisting of SQL, SQL/MR and SQL/GR. What it means is that there is no functional or operational gaps between data storage and its operators (SQL statements an SQL/MR or SQL/GR functions) operating on the data store - they live inside the same environment (configuration, execution, maintenance, support). For example, columnar and row-based tables are completely transparent for any operation performed on the them (barring constraints defined a priori and by design).
So, your analogy does explain Hadoop side of the equation without really giving proper due to Aster.