We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS E-Series Servers and HPE Synergy based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Blade Servers solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The product is overall stable."
"Stability-wise, it is a good product that remains stable."
"The Cisco chassis is very easy to configure and any network engineer or expert can configure the solution and easily integrate it with the chassis."
"The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability."
"They are really easy to maintain. I've added RAM to them. I've done a lot of other things with the virtualization."
"The most valuable features are that they are efficient and easy to setup."
"Cisco has better visibility and manageability for disaster recovery."
"They're easy to swap and move around the datacenter, for sure. They don't occupy too much space for what they offer."
"Synergy is much easier to use, which is saving us time. We are able to set the profiles for firmware upgrades. This makes the process for the care and feeding of the IT environment much simpler, quicker, and cleaner."
"It is a good product for hypervisors."
"Everything is in one place. We have one place to with OneView. It provides one console with one place to get to everything. The one interface makes it easier. We have one guy who does almost everything in it."
"The solution helps us to implement new business requirements quickly with some app deployments."
"Everything is combined in one chassis, you have storage, compute, networking. So you save a lot of space in the datacenter."
"The initial setup is straightforward. The infrastructures as code enables you to fill out the configuration before you even deploy it, then it is just a one-touch deployment."
"Shorter delivery times. Where we now have a delivery time of about six weeks, we hope to go back to days."
"It is not a solution that is cloud ready."
"The product should also be available in a standard edition or a standard license since currently there is a need to pay for an extra license, which is very expensive, especially when considering the budgeting part of our company."
"The biggest pain point for us is the matrix for the firmware upgrades. It is a pain. You look at that thing, you might as well be reading Greek. It would be a whole lot better if they could clean up their documentation on it."
"The processing capacity could be improved."
"The tool must be made compatible with multi-vendor ecosystems."
"The platform's pricing needs improvement. There could be more collaborative tools included."
"One thing that could be improved is the cost - it is very high for this Blade chassis as compared to other vendors. Especially in Asia. Asian customers mostly prefer a cost effective, cheaper solution."
"The initial setup was complex. We had a couple of bright engineers working on it, and they figured out a lot of things that they don't know... The problem was that they couldn't find documentation easily, to walk them through setup when they just didn't know the platform."
"There is always room for improvement. Based on our use cases, I don't believe there are any additional features required."
"Having a seamless DR implementation would help significantly."
"I think we were promised a little more than we were given. It's true, they are working very hard to try to help remedy that."
"Sometimes there are firmware or software difficulties when connecting between networks or with storage."
"One of the issues that we that we have been having is with the firmware baselining. So, we need to just making sure that we get that working. However, we are in the early stages. It may well be that we just tweak a few things."
"We had some challenges during the implementation and a few issues afterward, but they were all sort of related to how Synergy interacts with Nexus. Our Nexus on the network side is managed by another group, and they had just gotten Nexus, so they weren't really familiar with how Nexus even worked. Getting these two to interact well was the majority of our issues. It really didn't have anything to do with Synergy. It points to know the environment that you are putting it in and making sure you are dotting all your i's and crossing all your t's when you are figuring out what their requirements are to communicate."
"If it would be possible to connect clusters of five with other clusters, so that they could all share resources, that would change the game for us. It would make it a viable solution for us."
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is ranked 11th in Blade Servers with 7 reviews while HPE Synergy is ranked 1st in Blade Servers with 87 reviews. Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is rated 8.0, while HPE Synergy is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers writes "Easy to configure and operate". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE Synergy writes "Local hard drives are not needed for the i3S module that boots to any operating system". Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is most compared with Super Micro SuperBlade, whereas HPE Synergy is most compared with HPE BladeSystem, Dell PowerEdge M, Cisco UCS B-Series, HPE Apollo and HPE ProLiant DL Servers. See our Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. HPE Synergy report.
See our list of best Blade Servers vendors.
We monitor all Blade 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.