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 feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."
"Stateless Blade is the best feature."
"The scalability is very good."
"The solution has the ability to reuse or divide the networking, making it a flexible networking environment."
"The most valuable features of the solution are stability and security."
"The product is easy to use."
"In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution."
"The platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"It is very stable."
"They are reliable, and it's relatively easy to manage them. They also regularly provide patching for the servers."
"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."
"The solution is issue-free and works almost flawlessly."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is simplified management."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management. It is easy to communicate from the server to the storage."
"The solution has good performance."
"Cabling complexity and volume have been reduced."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"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."
"The graphic code that UCS can support is limited and less accessible than other systems."
"Compared to the deployment of servers such as Dell XCDs, the deployment of UCS servers is more complex. They take longer to deploy."
"The cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"We have to have Java to manage the infrastructure. It would be great if we can manage the infrastructure through a web browser."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"The tool must provide integration with the cloud."
"They are not selling BladeSystem anymore. The end of the sale of this platform was this year, 2020."
"I would like to see the upgrade path a little bit smoother."
"Non-disruptive firmware upgrades in all areas of blade technology."
"I rate the stability of HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten."
"It would be nice if the solution were cheaper."
"The servers are a little bit huge, so it would be great if they could renew the size."
"For me, the product is okay, but I would probably suggest improvement in their services or technical support. They need to work harder in the preventative maintenance of the system. They need to improve in terms of how quickly can we get attention and how quickly problems are resolved. Its price could also be lower."
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.