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."From a return on investment perspective, Cisco UCS B-Series is worth the money."
"The platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"Some of the features I like from this solution are it has a fast configuration, it is not complex, and has high availability."
"The solution's most valuable feature is KVM Launch Manager."
"The solution is very unified and the technical team is very supportive, no help is needed from outside vendors."
"The Boot from SAN function is good because using OTV, we can boot the device from any remote location."
"Great security and functionality."
"The Dashboard is quite impressive and is, so far, the best based on my experience."
"It is very stable."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of management with the hardware."
"The scalability has been good."
"The product has a lot of options for checking servers and IoT ports using artificial intelligence."
"They are reliable, and it's relatively easy to manage them. They also regularly provide patching for the servers."
"The solution uses a smaller space in our data centers. It uses less feeder and network cable, which reduces costs."
"The technical support is good."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is simplified management."
"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."
"The solution’s technical support could be better."
"The upgrades could be improved."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"There are some shortcomings in the product when you look at it from the perspective of the area involving multiple configurations, making it an aspect where improvements are required."
"USC Central seems a bit confusing for technicians."
"It should be more user-friendly."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"It could always use new tools."
"The connectivity speed could be improved."
"It may be coming to its end of life."
"It is lacking in the ability to replicate virtual machines more easily."
"There have been some hardware failures with them. These failures have since been solved by HPE support partners."
"We sometimes have compatibility issues depending on the browser that you are using. For example, sometimes you have to switch between Edge, Mozilla, Internet Explorer, or Chrome to have things operating correctly."
"BladeSystem is an old-fashioned server and not very well developed for new features and new areas of data centers, which is not very good for enterprise companies."
"There could be more management capability to work with integrations."
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.