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 product is easy to use."
"Stateless Blade is the best feature."
"Great security and functionality."
"The most valuable feature is definitely the service profile."
"The most valuable feature that the B-Series has is related to the structure and architecture of the solution because in these solutions, you are using fabric interconnect as an interconnect device. The beauty of fabric interconnect is that it can work as in-house mode."
"I can connect Cisco UCS B-Series to multiple chassis and rack servers using a unified platform, then manage them on a single console."
"Cisco UCS B-Series is scalable."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"One of the most valuable features I have found to be the enclosure. It is really easy to manage and everything is integrated. You are able to upgrade the software quite easily."
"I really appreciate the integrated Onboard Administrator, the iLO (Integrated Lights-Out) modular network, and the SAN Switches."
"The solution has good performance."
"The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature."
"It also has a pretty solid design and management."
"The product has a lot of options for checking servers and IoT ports using artificial intelligence."
"The product has been simple to set up."
"Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features."
"The GUI is not the greatest."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved and made cheaper."
"The solution is expensive."
"It should be more user-friendly."
"The solution is difficult to set up."
"There are patches that cannot be implemented without any downtime or reboot required."
"Next generation support for VMware needs to be introduced as it does not support eighth-generation VMware."
"The cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"HPE BladeSystem could improve the communication between the server and the storage."
"The only side that must be improved is the active-passive interconnect module architecture."
"OA updates and upgrades have to be made simpler."
"The management side of this solution could be improved."
"I am not sure if iLO is included or if there is a separate license. If it is not included, it should be included in the license. It is such a valuable feature especially because people are working remotely."
"The problem is that when want to expand with a new chassis, you have to do everything manually. It's not automatic."
"This product needs a wider range of firmware compatibility matrix from the oldest to the newest blade server."
"The response time in terms of getting technical support assistance could be improved."
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.