We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS B-Series and HPE BladeSystem 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 Boot from SAN function is good because using OTV, we can boot the device from any remote location."
"The solution has the ability to reuse or divide the networking, making it a flexible networking environment."
"The platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"The most beneficial feature is UCS Manager. It's the best way to manage hardware, creating group policies, like scrub policies and maintenance policies."
"It is less time-consuming to deploy the software."
"The solution is stable."
"In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution."
"The initial setup is pretty simple and straightforward."
"I like the stability."
"The product is quite stable. Its performance is reliable."
"The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature of the HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management and the robust design."
"No issues with scalability. We can scale by adding another enclosure."
"I have noticed that the solution does provide a very good ROI for companies."
"It provides a secure access to the console and reliable administration."
"It is very stable."
"The solution’s technical support could be better."
"The price of this product is too high. They should work to make it more affordable."
"The solution is expensive."
"We have to have Java to manage the infrastructure. It would be great if we can manage the infrastructure through a web browser."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved and made cheaper."
"There are patches that cannot be implemented without any downtime or reboot required."
"The solution is difficult to set up."
"Non-disruptive firmware upgrades in all areas of blade technology."
"It would be nice if the solution were cheaper."
"The only side that must be improved is the active-passive interconnect module architecture."
"If the hardware offered higher efficiency, that would be an ideal situation for our company."
"This product needs a wider range of firmware compatibility matrix from the oldest to the newest blade server."
"HPE BladeSystem could improve the communication between the server and the storage."
"Higher bandwidth interconnects could be introduced."
"I would like to see the upgrade path a little bit smoother."
Cisco UCS B-Series is ranked 3rd in Blade Servers with 64 reviews while HPE BladeSystem is ranked 2nd in Blade Servers with 134 reviews. Cisco UCS B-Series is rated 8.6, while HPE BladeSystem is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS B-Series writes "Robust hardware and efficient management of hardware, creating group policies, such as scrub policies and maintenance policies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE BladeSystem writes "Very reliable, expands well, and is pretty simple to set up". Cisco UCS B-Series is most compared with HPE Synergy, Dell PowerEdge M, Super Micro SuperBlade, Pure Storage FlashBlade and Lenovo Flex System, whereas HPE BladeSystem is most compared with HPE Synergy, Dell PowerEdge M, Super Micro SuperBlade, HPE Superdome X and Pure Storage FlashBlade. See our Cisco UCS B-Series vs. HPE BladeSystem 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.