We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers and HPE ProLiant DL Servers based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Rack Servers solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution is easily scalable."
"Excellent server solution with incredible network throughput."
"It is very nice and stable with an easy administration GUI."
"The solution is scalable."
"The solution is stable."
"On the Cisco side, there is a benefit in terms of server management. Cisco provides UCS Manager, which is a multi-tenant site manager. We can manage multiple sites while maintaining disaster recovery, a feature not available on other platforms."
"The most valuable features of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers are agileness, ease of operation, and manageability."
"In most cases, computes compute, and there isn't much differentiation, but one point of differentiation is Intersight cloud management."
"HPE ProLiant DL Servers are easy to maintain. When we need to update the firmware or we need to log on remotely via the IO management interface. It's very convenient, easy. The supply chain is fast when we need to replace some failed hardware, such as hard drives or power supplies. Most of the time, it only takes a few days. The HPE ProLiant DL Servers services are officially certified for Red Hat usage which is a big advantage."
"Its reliability and after-sales support are very good."
"Stability is where HPE dominates competitors like Dell and Cisco. The servers are highly reliable, and we are impressed with the technology HPE offers."
"The product is scalable and stable."
"It is stable."
"Its management, IOs, and stability are the most valuable features. It works fine. It has all the features of a typical server. All that can be done has already been done."
"This solution is very scalable. When we bought the DL580, we bought it with full capacity. It is great for our business."
"The ProLiant DL Servers are stable and reliable."
"Some customers have complained about delivery time. So, the main weakness is the lead time."
"The product's stability and delivery time could be better."
"There is very little scalability for the cluster. If you need a higher availability, there is a user limitation. So that is the low side."
"Technical support could be more responsive."
"The initial setup could be easier."
"I would like to see a little more integration with VMware."
"The pricing is too high and no discounts are available for our country."
"In the version we need to use, the manager is still reliant on a full Java install on a Windows OS. This is inconvenient and problematic if you have multiple management tools on different versions of Java or if you move to a machine without the appropriate Java environment."
"They should work with Microsoft to make licensing costs better. That's because the physical servers have processors with all these cores, and Microsoft now licenses Windows virtual server desktops based on the number of cores and the serving servers. So, if you got to build 10 or 20 servers on that desktop, you got to license them all with Microsoft. They should have a partnership with Microsoft to decrease the virtual licensing of servers in partnerships so that when you purchase the servers, you also get licensing for Microsoft on top of them. That's because it gets very expensive to license virtual operating systems to run on physical servers."
"I would like to replace a hard drive that might be saved on the fly, on the server that I'm using currently, but I can't do that. I'm forced to power off my virtual machine, turn off the server, disconnect it from the power, replace the drive, rebuild the storage, and power it on again."
"It is too expensive. Its price should be improved. The system admin interface should have better visibility while troubleshooting a problem, even when the problem is coming from the application."
"We have had issues with ProLiant's intelligent provisioning. Sometimes, the drivers do not come up, so we have to install them manually."
"The solution should work to be more scalable."
"They should continue to maintain the stability that is there."
"HPE ProLiant DL Servers are not scalable."
"The price of HPE ProLiant DL Servers could improve."
More Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is ranked 5th in Rack Servers with 29 reviews while HPE ProLiant DL Servers is ranked 2nd in Rack Servers with 156 reviews. Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is rated 8.4, while HPE ProLiant DL Servers is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers writes "The VIC card is the most important feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE ProLiant DL Servers writes "Good availability and management console with good reliability". Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is most compared with Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers, Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers, Dell XR2 Rugged Server, HPE Synergy and IBM Power Systems, whereas HPE ProLiant DL Servers is most compared with Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers, Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers, HPE Apollo, IBM Power Systems and HPE Synergy. See our Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers vs. HPE ProLiant DL Servers report.
See our list of best Rack Servers vendors.
We monitor all Rack Servers 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.
Another good question to consider is, how deeply are security and anti-tampering features built in? With the advent of Gen 10 servers HPE is implementing this right down in silicon whereas the rest of the marketplace is still using firmware features to try to accomplish this. This is arguably too late in the process to be able to guarantee what BIOS code you are actually running, what back doors have been slotted in or what spyware ‘features’ have been embedded!
Also, look where HPE are going with Synergy. They have taken a huge architectural leap forwards and the roadmap is hugely impressive.
I don´t know in deep Cisco servers, but if you compares a HP and a CISCO with identical hardware (same chipset, processor, amount of RAM,..), the benchmark are very similar.
In my humble opinión, it is very important ask for the warranty and tech support. And most important: if you need someday add more hardware to your server, you must know before if you don´t buy it to the server manufacture, you loose the warranty.
It is very tipical some server manufacturer sell very cheap their machines but when you need to add more memory and/or hard drives, it is obligatory buy them to the server manufacturer... an very expensive.
I would suggest visiting spec.org as there is a wealth of information available there. The benchmarks are run by the vendors but within guideline and industry verified. There are many different benchmarks available through this site depending on what you are really interested in.
Hope this helps
Depending on what kind of workload you are looking for, you can find some info. / results from www.spec.org. Since Cisco UCS and Proliant DL are commonly used servers in enterprise, there should be test results of various benchmark on these server models.
As per my experience, CISCO UCS C-series is having scalability issue but for HPE ProLiant DL RACk server is good in terms of scalability. HPE tech support is much better than CISCO UCS.
I suggest checking the key benchmark sites directly – TPC-C, SAP etc. Each benchmark is designed to test a specific system capability.
www.tpc.org
global.sap.com
I have attached the URL’s. The SAP testing is most revealing for overall systems performance and scalability. The most recent certifications show Cisco UCS servers eclipsing their HPE counterparts by notable margins. Standard Proliant systems are lower in total lines processed than Cisco units, and you have to move up to the HPE Synergy line to beat lower end Cisco C240 servers. However, the higher end 4-way Cisco C480 handily beats Synergy.