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."Cisco UCS B-Series is scalable."
"The most beneficial feature is UCS Manager. It's the best way to manage hardware, creating group policies, like scrub policies and maintenance policies."
"The most valuable features of the Cisco UCS B-Series are reports for virtualization and the large memory it has."
"The Dashboard is quite impressive and is, so far, the best based on my experience."
"The initial setup is simple, and not very complex."
"The feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."
"In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution."
"The product's tech support has good people."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its high availability."
"The most valuable feature of the HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management and the robust design."
"Wide choice in mixing SAN and LAN."
"I like the stability."
"Basically, in a cluster, it works really nicely, especially within a cluster environment. Also, it's easily configurable."
"Uptime and service are valuable for us. When we have an issue, uptime and being able to get an emergency replacement or actual service is the most important thing for us."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is its upgradability and centralized configuration."
"The product has a lot of options for checking servers and IoT ports using artificial intelligence."
"Its scalability could be better."
"The configuration is a bit complex, as it requires very high technical expertise to apply it."
"The configuration is a little bit complicated and could be made simpler."
"The graphic code that UCS can support is limited and less accessible than other systems."
"The solution is difficult to set up."
"The cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"Cisco is expensive and difficult to manage. The product is not intuitive. It also needs to improve storage management and upgrades."
"HPE has a replacement system called Synergy, though it’s a more high-end system than the old C7000."
"The integration and price of HPE BladeSystem could be improved."
"It would be nice if the solution were cheaper."
"There is always room for improvement everywhere with the HPE BladeSystem."
"OA updates and upgrades have to be made simpler."
"The solution could improve by having more automation, such as the automatic mapping feature that is available in the Synergy Blade series."
"I'd like to see an all-in-one packet in the future."
"The only side that must be improved is the active-passive interconnect module architecture."
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.
