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 GUI makes is simple to use and deploy."
"The hardware is easily swappable and, utilizing the boot from SAN option, you can always keep your server intact due to the service profiles."
"The most valuable features of the solution are stability and security."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"The solution is stable...The solution is scalable."
"The platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"The stability provided by the product is its most valuable feature for our organization."
"The Dashboard is quite impressive and is, so far, the best based on my experience."
"The solution has high performance."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"HPE BladeSystem is a scalable solution. It is a composable infrastructure which we can manage our external services. This is the one factor which I can see the server is much more suitable for the OneView console."
"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."
"The solution is issue-free and works almost flawlessly."
"For me, the most valuable features are integration and simple defining."
"Remote management features are valuable."
"They are reliable, and it's relatively easy to manage them. They also regularly provide patching for the servers."
"This product uses a converged network adapter because it is the only way to provide flexibility with both fiber and ethernet connections."
"The upgrades could be improved."
"The configuration is a bit complex, as it requires very high technical expertise to apply it."
"Next generation support for VMware needs to be introduced as it does not support eighth-generation VMware."
"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."
"HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work."
"The solution is expensive."
"USC Central seems a bit confusing for technicians."
"The problem is that when want to expand with a new chassis, you have to do everything manually. It's not automatic."
"OA updates and upgrades have to be made simpler."
"Storage capacity could be enhanced."
"I'd like to see an all-in-one packet in the future."
"I would prefer to have changes in the compatibility of the blade servers with the new ones designed by HPE, as the top team's version does not have it."
"I rate the stability of HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten."
"The support you get is dependant on the region. Some regions are better than others."
"There have been some hardware failures with them. These failures have since been solved by HPE support partners."
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.