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."
"Since its UCS release in 2009, Cisco has extended the core functionality with Central, a tool for managing multiple domains"
"The feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."
"The scalability is good because it comes with Fabric Interconnects, and you can directly add more blades as you go. Therefore, scalability is not a problem."
"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."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to replace a server with another one, simply by applying the profile"
"I like that the hardware is separated from the software definition of the components."
"The interface and dashboard are excellent and user-friendly."
"The product has a lot of options for checking servers and IoT ports using artificial intelligence."
"The technical support is good."
"The solution has good performance."
"The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature."
"With just one cable, for redundancy let's say two, you can feed sixteen servers in a single c7000 chassis."
"The density of the BladeSystem, that we can keep adding blades as we need more VMs."
"We are very happy with flexible NIC configuration features which are possible if you combine the BladeServers with HPE flex switches in the enclosures."
"For future improvements, it would be a benefit if the solution could integrate better with products such as Oracle."
"The license is expensive. Cisco should decrease the delay in the delivery of their products."
"USC Central seems a bit confusing for technicians."
"The initial setup process is complex."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"Its scalability could be better."
"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 monitoring features and integration with other products can be improved."
"It would be nice if the solution were cheaper."
"The interface in terms of management could be much more intuitive."
"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."
"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 other similar solutions used different CLI commands than HPE BladeSystem. The HPE BladeSystem CLI commands should be the same as the other companies which would make it easier to manage. It would be better for the system administrators to manage HPE BladeSystem and other systems together. I wanted to configure this service with the CLI but the commands are different than the other solutions making it a bit more difficult."
"HPE has a replacement system called Synergy, though it’s a more high-end system than the old C7000."
"There have been some hardware failures with them. These failures have since been solved by HPE support partners."
"We have not needed to contact support because we have not had an issue. However, the partner support we had could improve. There are some disadvantages compared to Dell. The questions that are asked from the support are too lengthy, this causes a delay in support."
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.