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 initial setup is simple, and not very complex."
"The feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."
"It is a very robust and reliable solution."
"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 pretty simple and straightforward."
"The solution is very unified and the technical team is very supportive, no help is needed from outside vendors."
"Stateless Blade is the best feature."
"The product's tech support has good people."
"HPE BladeSystem is very easy to use."
"They have served different needs for us from virtualized web servers to dedicated databases and application servers."
"They are reliable, and it's relatively easy to manage them. They also regularly provide patching for the servers."
"I have noticed that the solution does provide a very good ROI for companies."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is its upgradability and centralized configuration."
"HPE BladeSystem provides good commuting performance."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is simplified management."
"Wide choice in mixing SAN and LAN."
"Compared to the deployment of servers such as Dell XCDs, the deployment of UCS servers is more complex. They take longer to deploy."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved and made cheaper."
"Cisco is expensive and difficult to manage. The product is not intuitive. It also needs to improve storage management and upgrades."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"USC Central seems a bit confusing for technicians."
"Cisco UCS B-Series competitors have similar features as they do, Cisco needs to make some changes to make their offering better."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"The solution is expensive."
"I rate the stability of HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten."
"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."
"The only side that must be improved is the active-passive interconnect module architecture."
"It will be discontinued so we will have to change to another product shortly."
"There have been some hardware failures with them. These failures have since been solved by HPE support partners."
"We sometimes have compatibility issues depending on the browser that you are using. For example, sometimes you have to switch between Edge, Mozilla, Internet Explorer, or Chrome to have things operating correctly."
"If you compare it with Lenovo systems, the pricing is too high."
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.
