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."Since its UCS release in 2009, Cisco has extended the core functionality with Central, a tool for managing multiple domains"
"The most valuable features are monitoring and processing, which can handle a lot of throughput and are more powerful than the HPE series."
"The product is easy to use."
"The solution is stable...The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable features of the Cisco UCS B-Series are reports for virtualization and the large memory it has."
"The ratio in terms of the number of units and the number of servers that we can get each chassis is quite good."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the service profile."
"The Dual Fabric design allows for online/in-service upgrades during production with no impact."
"Remote management features are valuable."
"The product is quite stable. Its performance is reliable."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"With just one cable, for redundancy let's say two, you can feed sixteen servers in a single c7000 chassis."
"The product has a lot of options for checking servers and IoT ports using artificial intelligence."
"The solution has good performance."
"One of the most valuable features I have found to be the enclosure. It is really easy to manage and everything is integrated. You are able to upgrade the software quite easily."
"This model does not support virtualization of the switch."
"Right now, the market is rapidly transitioning to solid-state media and the Cisco options tend to be less varied and more expensive than a broader slate of products from HP, Dell or IBM."
"The upgrades could be improved."
"The management interface needs a lot of improvement. As it is right now, it's a pain to use. It's not user-friendly."
"There are patches that cannot be implemented without any downtime or reboot required."
"Cisco is expensive and difficult to manage. The product is not intuitive. It also needs to improve storage management and upgrades."
"Its scalability could be better."
"For future improvements, it would be a benefit if the solution could integrate better with products such as Oracle."
"The management side of this solution could be improved."
"It could always use new tools."
"It is lacking in the ability to replicate virtual machines more easily."
"They should provide open learning materials and seminars for detailed knowledge of the product."
"Higher bandwidth interconnects could be introduced."
"HPE has a replacement system called Synergy, though it’s a more high-end system than the old C7000."
"HPE BladeSystem can improve by providing the latest generation processor engine, such as the I-Flex processor."
"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.
