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 solution has the ability to reuse or divide the networking, making it a flexible networking environment."
"It is less time-consuming to deploy the software."
"The initial setup is simple, and not very complex."
"The solution is stable...The solution is scalable."
"The Boot from SAN function is good because using OTV, we can boot the device from any remote location."
"From a return on investment perspective, Cisco UCS B-Series is worth the money."
"The hardware is easily swappable and, utilizing the boot from SAN option, you can always keep your server intact due to the service profiles."
"I like that the hardware is separated from the software definition of the components."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"I like the stability."
"It is easy to scale if you have the licensing."
"Modularity is a key feature that provides energy saving ."
"They have served different needs for us from virtualized web servers to dedicated databases and application servers."
"It also has a pretty solid design and management."
"The product has a lot of options for checking servers and IoT ports using artificial intelligence."
"The product is quite stable. Its performance is reliable."
"The product could be made more secure."
"Cisco is expensive and difficult to manage. The product is not intuitive. It also needs to improve storage management and upgrades."
"The management interface needs a lot of improvement. As it is right now, it's a pain to use. It's not user-friendly."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"Cisco could improve the user-friendliness for less experienced users."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"It should be more user-friendly."
"The support you get is dependant on the region. Some regions are better than others."
"It could always use new tools."
"The servers are a little bit huge, so it would be great if they could renew the size."
"HPE BladeSystem could improve the communication between the server and the storage."
"If the hardware offered higher efficiency, that would be an ideal situation for our company."
"HPE BladeSystems is an old technology that cannot fit all of the dynamic organizational needs of our company."
"This product needs a wider range of firmware compatibility matrix from the oldest to the newest blade server."
"The other similar solutions used different CLI commands than HPE BladeSystem. The HPE BladeSystem CLI commands should be the same as the other companies which would make it easier to manage. It would be better for the system administrators to manage HPE BladeSystem and other systems together. I wanted to configure this service with the CLI but the commands are different than the other solutions making it a bit more difficult."
Cisco UCS B-Series is ranked 3rd in Blade Servers with 62 reviews while HPE BladeSystem is ranked 2nd in Blade Servers with 133 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.