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 it's very manageable very easy to use and configure. I am not an expert, but the graphic user interface is quite simple very easy to use. It's a complete solution."
"The stability provided by the product is its most valuable feature for our organization."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"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."
"The initial setup is simple, and not very complex."
"The Boot from SAN function is good because using OTV, we can boot the device from any remote location."
"Some of the features I like from this solution are it has a fast configuration, it is not complex, and has high availability."
"The solution uses less cabling and less space in the data center."
"The most valuable feature, of course, is its size as I can build a huge compute resource on it."
"With just one cable, for redundancy let's say two, you can feed sixteen servers in a single c7000 chassis."
"They are reliable, and it's relatively easy to manage them. They also regularly provide patching for the servers."
"Basically, in a cluster, it works really nicely, especially within a cluster environment. Also, it's easily configurable."
"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."
"No issues with scalability. We can scale by adding another enclosure."
"We are very happy with flexible NIC configuration features which are possible if you combine the BladeServers with HPE flex switches in the enclosures."
"The monitoring features and integration with other products can be improved."
"The GUI is not the greatest."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"Right now, the market is rapidly transitioning to solid-state media and the Cisco options tend to be less varied and more expensive than a broader slate of products from HP, Dell or IBM."
"This model does not support virtualization of the switch."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"Cisco UCS B-Series competitors have similar features as they do, Cisco needs to make some changes to make their offering better."
"The configuration is a little bit complicated and could be made simpler."
"The connectivity speed could be improved."
"It is lacking in the ability to replicate virtual machines more easily."
"The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis."
"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."
"Currently, in the case of a disk failure there is a need to remove the whole bay and as a result, to disconnect all the other disks."
"We had a few hard drives that crashed, and we couldn't find them locally. We've tried internationally, but we are still struggling to get its spare parts. This is the main challenge that we have faced with this solution. Fortunately, the other drives are still working. There should be easy availability of spare parts. I should be able to request a quotation online from HPE for things that I am not able to get locally. Currently, I can order online, but when I type the serial number, most of the time, it is rejected. I don't know why it is happening. It could be because the company that sold us the system didn't buy it through the normal HPE channel. HPE should assist us as users to get the spare parts. Its security needs to be beefed up. I would like some security features. It was also challenging for us to set it up because we didn't get enough training from them."
"HPE has a replacement system called Synergy, though it’s a more high-end system than the old C7000."
"I would like to see the upgrade path a little bit smoother."
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.