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 solution is stable...The solution is scalable."
"The GUI makes is simple to use and deploy."
"From a return on investment perspective, Cisco UCS B-Series is worth the money."
"The feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."
"The platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"The stability provided by the product is its most valuable feature for our organization."
"It's modular."
"It is less time-consuming to deploy the software."
"The solution is very fast and the power consumption is great."
"The product has a lot of options for checking servers and IoT ports using artificial intelligence."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its high availability."
"Wide choice in mixing SAN and LAN."
"I like the stability."
"Virtual Fabric and interconnects are easy to configure and maintain."
"The solution uses less cabling and less space in the data center."
"It also has a pretty solid design and management."
"There are patches that cannot be implemented without any downtime or reboot required."
"Compared to the deployment of servers such as Dell XCDs, the deployment of UCS servers is more complex. They take longer to deploy."
"The cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"Cisco is expensive and difficult to manage. The product is not intuitive. It also needs to improve storage management and upgrades."
"The solution’s technical support could be better."
"The configuration is a little bit complicated and could be made simpler."
"The solution is difficult to set up."
"HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work."
"The only side that must be improved is the active-passive interconnect module architecture."
"The interface in terms of management could be much more intuitive."
"It will be discontinued so we will have to change to another product shortly."
"I would like OneView to go over the current limit of 40 instances."
"Currently, in the case of a disk failure there is a need to remove the whole bay and as a result, to disconnect all the other disks."
"I am not sure if iLO is included or if there is a separate license. If it is not included, it should be included in the license. It is such a valuable feature especially because people are working remotely."
"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."
"HPE has a replacement system called Synergy, though it’s a more high-end system than the old C7000."
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.