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 Boot from SAN function is good because using OTV, we can boot the device from any remote location."
"It is a very robust and reliable solution."
"The scalability is very good."
"The platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"The solution is stable...The solution is scalable."
"The solution's most valuable feature is KVM Launch Manager."
"The most beneficial feature is UCS Manager. It's the best way to manage hardware, creating group policies, like scrub policies and maintenance policies."
"The stability provided by the product is its most valuable feature for our organization."
"The solution has good performance."
"The solution uses a smaller space in our data centers. It uses less feeder and network cable, which reduces costs."
"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."
"It is not expensive."
"We are very happy with flexible NIC configuration features which are possible if you combine the BladeServers with HPE flex switches in the enclosures."
"They are very fast and very reliable. They are working under very tough conditions."
"The density of the BladeSystem, that we can keep adding blades as we need more VMs."
"The solution has high performance."
"Integration with storage could be improved."
"Cisco could improve the user-friendliness for less experienced users."
"The UCS manager interface needs to be cleaned up a bit and can be streamlined, but no major complaints."
"The main issue with this solution is that it is quite vendor-restricted, meaning that when we use third party software, we cannot use all of the available configuration tools or pre-validated design features."
"The cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"Cisco UCS B-Series competitors have similar features as they do, Cisco needs to make some changes to make their offering better."
"The GUI is not the greatest."
"Its scalability could be better."
"Higher bandwidth interconnects could be introduced."
"It would be nice if the solution were cheaper."
"I rate the stability of HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten."
"The response time in terms of getting technical support assistance could be improved."
"Non-disruptive firmware upgrades in all areas of blade technology."
"They are not selling BladeSystem anymore. The end of the sale of this platform was this year, 2020."
"I'd like to see an all-in-one packet in the future."
"We would like to see OneView software features as an additional feature."
Cisco UCS B-Series is ranked 3rd in Blade Servers with 62 reviews while HPE BladeSystem is ranked 2nd in Blade Servers with 133 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.