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."Since its UCS release in 2009, Cisco has extended the core functionality with Central, a tool for managing multiple domains"
"The Dual Fabric design allows for online/in-service upgrades during production with no impact."
"The most valuable features are monitoring and processing, which can handle a lot of throughput and are more powerful than the HPE series."
"It's modular."
"The solution is very unified and the technical team is very supportive, no help is needed from outside vendors."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is easily scalable."
"The GUI makes is simple to use and deploy."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"With just one cable, for redundancy let's say two, you can feed sixteen servers in a single c7000 chassis."
"Cabling complexity and volume have been reduced."
"No issues with scalability. We can scale by adding another enclosure."
"They have served different needs for us from virtualized web servers to dedicated databases and application servers."
"The benefit is the density and the capability for global harmonization on the hardware, because all the hardware chassis are the same. We can also purchase the same network cards too, chassis by chassis, so it gives us a global solution."
"The technical support is good."
"Integration with storage could be improved."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"It should be more user-friendly."
"The UCS manager interface needs to be cleaned up a bit and can be streamlined, but no major complaints."
"The product could be made more secure."
"The price of this product is too high. They should work to make it more affordable."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"This model does not support virtualization of the switch."
"HPE BladeSystem could improve the communication between the server and the storage."
"HPE BladeSystem that we are using is currently very old. It's not too good. We haven't renewed it. I would like the solution to have more updates."
"I rate the stability of HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten."
"The integration and price of HPE BladeSystem could be improved."
"It is lacking in the ability to replicate virtual machines more easily."
"HPE has a replacement system called Synergy, though it’s a more high-end system than the old C7000."
"The price of the solution has room for improvement."
"The response time in terms of getting technical support assistance 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.