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 platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"It is less time-consuming to deploy the software."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"The initial setup is pretty simple and straightforward."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to replace a server with another one, simply by applying the profile"
"The Dashboard is quite impressive and is, so far, the best based on my experience."
"The most valuable features are monitoring and processing, which can handle a lot of throughput and are more powerful than the HPE series."
"The product is easy to use."
"The most valuable feature, of course, is its size as I can build a huge compute resource on it."
"It's very scalable."
"It is not expensive."
"Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features."
"The scalability has been good."
"It also has a pretty solid design and management."
"Basically, in a cluster, it works really nicely, especially within a cluster environment. Also, it's easily configurable."
"Remote management features are valuable."
"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."
"Cisco UCS B-Series competitors have similar features as they do, Cisco needs to make some changes to make their offering better."
"We have to have Java to manage the infrastructure. It would be great if we can manage the infrastructure through a web browser."
"Next generation support for VMware needs to be introduced as it does not support eighth-generation VMware."
"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."
"HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work."
"The product could be made more secure."
"Cisco could improve the user-friendliness for less experienced users."
"The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis."
"The integration and price of HPE BladeSystem could be improved."
"It could always use new tools."
"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."
"HPE BladeSystem can improve proactive monitoring."
"Some part of virtual connections needs improvement."
"The management side of this solution could be improved."
"Non-disruptive firmware upgrades in all areas of blade technology."
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.