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."It's modular."
"The scalability is very good."
"The ratio in terms of the number of units and the number of servers that we can get each chassis is quite good."
"From a return on investment perspective, Cisco UCS B-Series is worth the money."
"I can connect Cisco UCS B-Series to multiple chassis and rack servers using a unified platform, then manage them on a single console."
"Some of the features I like from this solution are it has a fast configuration, it is not complex, and has high availability."
"In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution."
"The Dual Fabric design allows for online/in-service upgrades during production with no impact."
"Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features."
"I like the stability."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is its upgradability and centralized configuration."
"No issues with scalability. We can scale by adding another enclosure."
"It is a stable, dependable solution."
"The most valuable feature of the HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management."
"It's very scalable."
"HPE BladeSystem provides good commuting performance."
"Integration with storage could be improved."
"HTML5 interface is a much needed improvement over the old Java interface, but still needs a little work."
"USC Central seems a bit confusing for technicians."
"The product could be made more secure."
"Cisco is expensive and difficult to manage. The product is not intuitive. It also needs to improve storage management and upgrades."
"The monitoring features and integration with other products can be improved."
"Next generation support for VMware needs to be introduced as it does not support eighth-generation VMware."
"It needs a better UI. Cisco makes a great product, but doesn't know how to make a UI."
"The support you get is dependant on the region. Some regions are better than others."
"If the hardware offered higher efficiency, that would be an ideal situation for our company."
"HPE BladeSystems is an old technology that cannot fit all of the dynamic organizational needs of our company."
"If you compare it with Lenovo systems, the pricing is too high."
"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 by providing the latest generation processor engine, such as the I-Flex processor."
"It is lacking in the ability to replicate virtual machines more easily."
"Higher bandwidth interconnects could be introduced."
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 and HPE Superdome X. 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.