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."
"Cisco UCS B-Series is scalable."
"I like that the hardware is separated from the software definition of the components."
"The ratio in terms of the number of units and the number of servers that we can get each chassis is quite good."
"The hardware is easily swappable and, utilizing the boot from SAN option, you can always keep your server intact due to the service profiles."
"The product's tech support has good people."
"The solution has the ability to reuse or divide the networking, making it a flexible networking environment."
"The most valuable features of the Cisco UCS B-Series are reports for virtualization and the large memory it has."
"The benefit is the density and the capability for global harmonization on the hardware, because all the hardware chassis are the same. We can also purchase the same network cards too, chassis by chassis, so it gives us a global solution."
"It is a stable, dependable solution."
"It is very stable."
"The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature."
"Basically, in a cluster, it works really nicely, especially within a cluster environment. Also, it's easily configurable."
"The solution has good scalability."
"The solution is very easy to use."
"They are very fast and very reliable. They are working under very tough conditions."
"USC Central seems a bit confusing for technicians."
"The integration is an area where Cisco UCS B-Series needs to provide users with more details."
"Cisco could improve the user-friendliness for less experienced users."
"Integration with storage could be improved."
"HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work."
"The GUI is not the greatest."
"The price of this product is too high. They should work to make it more affordable."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved and made cheaper."
"Higher bandwidth interconnects could be introduced."
"The problem is that when want to expand with a new chassis, you have to do everything manually. It's not automatic."
"It would be nice if the solution were cheaper."
"For me, the product is okay, but I would probably suggest improvement in their services or technical support. They need to work harder in the preventative maintenance of the system. They need to improve in terms of how quickly can we get attention and how quickly problems are resolved. Its price could also be lower."
"There have been some hardware failures with them. These failures have since been solved by HPE support partners."
"The interface in terms of management could be much more intuitive."
"The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis."
"OA updates and upgrades have to be made simpler."
Cisco UCS B-Series is ranked 3rd in Blade Servers with 62 reviews while HPE BladeSystem is ranked 2nd in Blade Servers with 133 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.