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 product's tech support has good people."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the service profile."
"The architecture of this solution is very valuable; it has five traffic interconnects, and uses a network highway so bandwidth is never an issue."
"Since its UCS release in 2009, Cisco has extended the core functionality with Central, a tool for managing multiple domains"
"Great security and functionality."
"The most valuable features are monitoring and processing, which can handle a lot of throughput and are more powerful than the HPE series."
"The solution is very unified and the technical team is very supportive, no help is needed from outside vendors."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of the HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management and the robust design."
"Virtual Fabric and interconnects are easy to configure and maintain."
"The most valuable feature, of course, is its size as I can build a huge compute resource on it."
"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 product is quite stable. Its performance is reliable."
"With just one cable, for redundancy let's say two, you can feed sixteen servers in a single c7000 chassis."
"The solution is very fast and the power consumption is great."
"Modularity is a key feature that provides energy saving ."
"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."
"There are patches that cannot be implemented without any downtime or reboot required."
"USC Central seems a bit confusing for technicians."
"The graphic code that UCS can support is limited and less accessible than other systems."
"The configuration is a bit complex, as it requires very high technical expertise to apply it."
"We have to have Java to manage the infrastructure. It would be great if we can manage the infrastructure through a web browser."
"HPE BladeSystems is an old technology that cannot fit all of the dynamic organizational needs of our company."
"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."
"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."
"This product needs a wider range of firmware compatibility matrix from the oldest to the newest blade server."
"They could include some embedded software for container technology."
"I am not sure if iLO is included or if there is a separate license. If it is not included, it should be included in the license. It is such a valuable feature especially because people are working remotely."
"The response time in terms of getting technical support assistance could be improved."
Cisco UCS B-Series is ranked 3rd in Blade Servers with 22 reviews while HPE BladeSystem is ranked 2nd in Blade Servers with 21 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 "Modular, extendable, and high-density". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE BladeSystem writes "Good service, reliable, and remotely accessible through the iLO feature". 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.