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."I like that the hardware is separated from the software definition of the components."
"The product's tech support has good people."
"The solution is stable."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"The feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."
"The architecture of this solution is very valuable; it has five traffic interconnects, and uses a network highway so bandwidth is never an issue."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it is easily scalable."
"Great security and functionality."
"It's very scalable."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management. It is easy to communicate from the server to the storage."
"They are reliable, and they hardly break down. They are fast, and they serve us very well."
"The most valuable feature, of course, is its size as I can build a huge compute resource on it."
"For me, the most valuable features are integration and simple defining."
"It also has a pretty solid design and management."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of management with the hardware."
"HPE BladeSystem is very easy to use."
"The product could be made more secure."
"The graphic code that UCS can support is limited and less accessible than other systems."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved and made cheaper."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"It needs a better UI. Cisco makes a great product, but doesn't know how to make a UI."
"The integration is an area where Cisco UCS B-Series needs to provide users with more details."
"The pricing could be less."
"Really look at it closely, but really look at the Synergy product as well. That seems to me like that's the next evolution of the BladeSystem."
"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."
"The problem is that when want to expand with a new chassis, you have to do everything manually. It's not automatic."
"If the hardware offered higher efficiency, that would be an ideal situation for our company."
"The solution could improve by having more automation, such as the automatic mapping feature that is available in the Synergy Blade series."
"The connectivity speed could be improved."
"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."
"They should provide open learning materials and seminars for detailed knowledge of the product."
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.