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 Dashboard is quite impressive and is, so far, the best based on my experience."
"I like that the hardware is separated from the software definition of the components."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"The solution has the ability to reuse or divide the networking, making it a flexible networking environment."
"The solution is stable...The solution is scalable."
"The most valuable features are monitoring and processing, which can handle a lot of throughput and are more powerful than the HPE series."
"The ratio in terms of the number of units and the number of servers that we can get each chassis is quite good."
"It's modular."
"They are very fast and very reliable. They are working under very tough conditions."
"The solution has good scalability."
"Wide choice in mixing SAN and LAN."
"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 product is quite stable. Its performance is reliable."
"It is a stable, dependable solution."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management. It is easy to communicate from the server to the storage."
"The solution is very fast and the power consumption is great."
"This model does not support virtualization of the switch."
"The integration is an area where Cisco UCS B-Series needs to provide users with more details."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"The initial setup process is complex."
"The management interface needs a lot of improvement. As it is right now, it's a pain to use. It's not user-friendly."
"The configuration is a bit complex, as it requires very high technical expertise to apply it."
"The solution’s pricing could be improved and made cheaper."
"It should be more user-friendly."
"The price of the solution has room for improvement."
"They are not selling BladeSystem anymore. The end of the sale of this platform was this year, 2020."
"Higher bandwidth interconnects could be introduced."
"I would like to see the upgrade path a little bit smoother."
"HPE BladeSystem can improve by providing the latest generation processor engine, such as the I-Flex processor."
"For me, the product is okay, but I would probably suggest improvement in their services or technical support. They need to work harder in the preventative maintenance of the system. They need to improve in terms of how quickly can we get attention and how quickly problems are resolved. Its price could also be lower."
"I would like OneView to go over the current limit of 40 instances."
"The tool must provide integration with the cloud."
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.