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 most valuable features of the Cisco UCS B-Series are reports for virtualization and the large memory it has."
"The feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."
"The Boot from SAN function is good because using OTV, we can boot the device from any remote location."
"The product is easy to use."
"In terms of the flexibility of the tool to adapt to technology needs, I think it is a very good solution."
"Since its UCS release in 2009, Cisco has extended the core functionality with Central, a tool for managing multiple domains"
"The platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"Virtual Fabric and interconnects are easy to configure and maintain."
"They are reliable, and it's relatively easy to manage them. They also regularly provide patching for the servers."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its high availability."
"I like the stability."
"The solution is scalable, offering flexibility and expansion options to meet changing business needs."
"The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature."
"HPE BladeSystem is a scalable solution. It is a composable infrastructure which we can manage our external services. This is the one factor which I can see the server is much more suitable for the OneView console."
"The density of the BladeSystem, that we can keep adding blades as we need more VMs."
"The GUI is not the greatest."
"The pricing could be less."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"Cisco is expensive and difficult to manage. The product is not intuitive. It also needs to improve storage management and upgrades."
"There is a delay in the product's reporting and the rebooting system compared to servers from other vendors."
"The UCS manager interface needs to be cleaned up a bit and can be streamlined, but no major complaints."
"There are some shortcomings in the product when you look at it from the perspective of the area involving multiple configurations, making it an aspect where improvements are required."
"The management interface needs a lot of improvement. As it is right now, it's a pain to use. It's not user-friendly."
"It may be coming to its end of life."
"The solution could improve by having more automation, such as the automatic mapping feature that is available in the Synergy Blade series."
"Higher bandwidth interconnects could be introduced."
"The tool must provide integration with the cloud."
"There is always room for improvement everywhere with the HPE BladeSystem."
"I'd like to see an all-in-one packet in the future."
"They should provide open learning materials and seminars for detailed knowledge of the product."
"OA updates and upgrades have to be made simpler."
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.