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 scalability is good because it comes with Fabric Interconnects, and you can directly add more blades as you go. Therefore, scalability is not a problem."
"The solution has the ability to reuse or divide the networking, making it a flexible networking environment."
"The GUI makes is simple to use and deploy."
"The most valuable features are monitoring and processing, which can handle a lot of throughput and are more powerful than the HPE series."
"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 most valuable feature is the ability to replace a server with another one, simply by applying the profile"
"In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution."
"The initial setup is simple, and not very complex."
"When it comes to the BladeSystem, what we love about it most is being able to actually manage it using OneView."
"The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature."
"The solution uses less cabling and less space in the data center."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its high availability."
"I like the stability."
"The solution is issue-free and works almost flawlessly."
"This has drastically reduced our datacenter space, has good cooling and power consumption."
"Virtual Fabric and interconnects are easy to configure and maintain."
"The solution’s technical support could be better."
"Its scalability could be better."
"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 is expensive and has room for improvement."
"Compared to the deployment of servers such as Dell XCDs, the deployment of UCS servers is more complex. They take longer to deploy."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"The initial setup process is complex."
"The upgrades could be improved."
"I rate the stability of HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten."
"The price of the solution has room for improvement."
"HPE BladeSystem could improve the communication between the server and the storage."
"It would be nice if the solution were cheaper."
"If the hardware offered higher efficiency, that would be an ideal situation for our company."
"Currently, in the case of a disk failure there is a need to remove the whole bay and as a result, to disconnect all the other disks."
"They could include some embedded software for container technology."
"The connectivity speed could be improved."
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.