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."I like that the hardware is separated from the software definition of the components."
"The platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"The solution's most valuable feature is KVM Launch Manager."
"The solution is stable."
"It is a very robust and reliable solution."
"The most valuable feature is the service profile."
"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 product has been simple to set up."
"Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features."
"The solution uses less cabling and less space in the data center."
"The product is quite stable. Its performance is reliable."
"Basically, in a cluster, it works really nicely, especially within a cluster environment. Also, it's easily configurable."
"The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature."
"It is easy to scale if you have the licensing."
"It is very stable."
"It needs a better UI. Cisco makes a great product, but doesn't know how to make a UI."
"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 technical support could be better."
"Integration with storage could be improved."
"This product uses a converged network adapter because it is the only way to provide flexibility with both fiber and ethernet connections."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"Right now, the market is rapidly transitioning to solid-state media and the Cisco options tend to be less varied and more expensive than a broader slate of products from HP, Dell or IBM."
"The solution is difficult to set up."
"I'd like to see an all-in-one packet in the future."
"I would like to see the upgrade path a little bit smoother."
"There have been some hardware failures with them. These failures have since been solved by HPE support partners."
"The only side that must be improved is the active-passive interconnect module architecture."
"The interface in terms of management could be much more intuitive."
"Higher bandwidth interconnects could be introduced."
"BladeSystem is an old-fashioned server and not very well developed for new features and new areas of data centers, which is not very good for enterprise companies."
"If the hardware offered higher efficiency, that would be an ideal situation for our company."
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.