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 architecture of this solution is very valuable; it has five traffic interconnects, and uses a network highway so bandwidth is never an issue."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"The solution is stable."
"Stateless Blade is the best feature."
"The solution's most valuable feature is KVM Launch Manager."
"The most valuable feature is the service profile."
"The solution is stable...The solution is scalable."
"Some of the features I like from this solution are it has a fast configuration, it is not complex, and has high availability."
"The most valuable feature, of course, is its size as I can build a huge compute resource on it."
"I really appreciate the integrated Onboard Administrator, the iLO (Integrated Lights-Out) modular network, and the SAN Switches."
"The scalability has been good."
"The technical support is good."
"With just one cable, for redundancy let's say two, you can feed sixteen servers in a single c7000 chassis."
"The solution has good performance."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"They have served different needs for us from virtualized web servers to dedicated databases and application servers."
"The cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"The pricing could be less."
"There is a delay in the product's reporting and the rebooting system compared to servers from other vendors."
"HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work."
"There are some shortcomings in the product when you look at it from the perspective of the area involving multiple configurations, making it an aspect where improvements are required."
"The high price of the solution is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The problem is that when want to expand with a new chassis, you have to do everything manually. It's not automatic."
"It is lacking in the ability to replicate virtual machines more easily."
"There have been some hardware failures with them. These failures have since been solved by HPE support partners."
"HPE BladeSystem that we are using is currently very old. It's not too good. We haven't renewed it. I would like the solution to have more updates."
"HPE BladeSystem can improve by providing the latest generation processor engine, such as the I-Flex processor."
"The interface in terms of management could be much more intuitive."
"I would like OneView to go over the current limit of 40 instances."
"It is really stable, however the motherboard sometimes crashes."
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.