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."In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution."
"The solution's most valuable feature is KVM Launch Manager."
"It's modular."
"The product's tech support has good people."
"The feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."
"The GUI makes is simple to use and deploy."
"Since its UCS release in 2009, Cisco has extended the core functionality with Central, a tool for managing multiple domains"
"The solution is very unified and the technical team is very supportive, no help is needed from outside vendors."
"The density of the BladeSystem, that we can keep adding blades as we need more VMs."
"HPE BladeSystem is very easy to use."
"The interface and dashboard are excellent and user-friendly."
"The solution has high performance."
"They are reliable, and it's relatively easy to manage them. They also regularly provide patching for the servers."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its high availability."
"They are very fast and very reliable. They are working under very tough conditions."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management. It is easy to communicate from the server to the storage."
"The license is expensive. Cisco should decrease the delay in the delivery of their products."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved and made cheaper."
"The solution is difficult to set up."
"Compared to the deployment of servers such as Dell XCDs, the deployment of UCS servers is more complex. They take longer to deploy."
"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."
"HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work."
"Cisco could improve the user-friendliness for less experienced users."
"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."
"They could include some embedded software for container technology."
"It could always use new tools."
"There could be more management capability to work with integrations."
"The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis."
"It would be nice if the solution were cheaper."
"I rate the stability of HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten."
"Really look at it closely, but really look at the Synergy product as well. That seems to me like that's the next evolution of the BladeSystem."
"HPE BladeSystem can improve by providing the latest generation processor engine, such as the I-Flex processor."
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.