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 most valuable feature is the ability to replace a server with another one, simply by applying the profile"
"In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution."
"The Dashboard is quite impressive and is, so far, the best based on my experience."
"The initial setup is pretty simple and straightforward."
"The most valuable features are monitoring and processing, which can handle a lot of throughput and are more powerful than the HPE series."
"It is less time-consuming to deploy the software."
"The hardware is easily swappable and, utilizing the boot from SAN option, you can always keep your server intact due to the service profiles."
"Great security and functionality."
"The solution is issue-free and works almost flawlessly."
"Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features."
"They are reliable, and they hardly break down. They are fast, and they serve us very well."
"The product has a lot of options for checking servers and IoT ports using artificial intelligence."
"The interface and dashboard are excellent and user-friendly."
"The solution is very fast and the power consumption is great."
"The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature."
"They are reliable, and it's relatively easy to manage them. They also regularly provide patching for the servers."
"Integration with storage could be improved."
"The price of this product is too high. They should work to make it more affordable."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"It should be more user-friendly."
"Cisco could improve the user-friendliness for less experienced users."
"HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work."
"Compared to the deployment of servers such as Dell XCDs, the deployment of UCS servers is more complex. They take longer to deploy."
"The UCS manager interface needs to be cleaned up a bit and can be streamlined, but no major complaints."
"Storage capacity could be enhanced."
"HPE BladeSystem can improve by providing the latest generation processor engine, such as the I-Flex processor."
"HPE BladeSystems is an old technology that cannot fit all of the dynamic organizational needs of our company."
"It may be coming to its end of life."
"They could include some embedded software for container technology."
"The integration and price of HPE BladeSystem could be improved."
"We have not needed to contact support because we have not had an issue. However, the partner support we had could improve. There are some disadvantages compared to Dell. The questions that are asked from the support are too lengthy, this causes a delay in support."
"It could always use new tools."
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 and HPE Superdome X. 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.