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 hardware is easily swappable and, utilizing the boot from SAN option, you can always keep your server intact due to the service profiles."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the service profile."
"In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution."
"The product's tech support has good people."
"The feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."
"It is less time-consuming to deploy the software."
"The Dual Fabric design allows for online/in-service upgrades during production with no impact."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management. It is easy to communicate from the server to the storage."
"Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features."
"Uptime and service are valuable for us. When we have an issue, uptime and being able to get an emergency replacement or actual service is the most important thing for us."
"This has drastically reduced our datacenter space, has good cooling and power consumption."
"The most valuable feature, of course, is its size as I can build a huge compute resource on it."
"It is not expensive."
"With just one cable, for redundancy let's say two, you can feed sixteen servers in a single c7000 chassis."
"They are very fast and very reliable. They are working under very tough conditions."
"The cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"Next generation support for VMware needs to be introduced as it does not support eighth-generation VMware."
"The monitoring features and integration with other products can be improved."
"The integration is an area where Cisco UCS B-Series needs to provide users with more details."
"For future improvements, it would be a benefit if the solution could integrate better with products such as Oracle."
"There is a delay in the product's reporting and the rebooting system compared to servers from other vendors."
"The management interface needs a lot of improvement. As it is right now, it's a pain to use. It's not user-friendly."
"HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work."
"The other similar solutions used different CLI commands than HPE BladeSystem. The HPE BladeSystem CLI commands should be the same as the other companies which would make it easier to manage. It would be better for the system administrators to manage HPE BladeSystem and other systems together. I wanted to configure this service with the CLI but the commands are different than the other solutions making it a bit more difficult."
"There could be more management capability to work with integrations."
"HPE BladeSystem could improve the communication between the server and the storage."
"We had a few hard drives that crashed, and we couldn't find them locally. We've tried internationally, but we are still struggling to get its spare parts. This is the main challenge that we have faced with this solution. Fortunately, the other drives are still working. There should be easy availability of spare parts. I should be able to request a quotation online from HPE for things that I am not able to get locally. Currently, I can order online, but when I type the serial number, most of the time, it is rejected. I don't know why it is happening. It could be because the company that sold us the system didn't buy it through the normal HPE channel. HPE should assist us as users to get the spare parts. Its security needs to be beefed up. I would like some security features. It was also challenging for us to set it up because we didn't get enough training from them."
"I would prefer to have changes in the compatibility of the blade servers with the new ones designed by HPE, as the top team's version does not have it."
"The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis."
"I would like OneView to go over the current limit of 40 instances."
"The solution could improve by having more automation, such as the automatic mapping feature that is available in the Synergy Blade series."
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.
