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 initial setup is pretty simple and straightforward."
"The solution is stable."
"The scalability is very good."
"Cisco UCS B-Series is scalable."
"The solution is very reliable in comparison to the other brands."
"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 Boot from SAN function is good because using OTV, we can boot the device from any remote location."
"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 technical support is good."
"They are very fast and very reliable. They are working under very tough conditions."
"The scalability has been good."
"No issues with scalability. We can scale by adding another enclosure."
"The interface and dashboard are excellent and user-friendly."
"The density of the BladeSystem, that we can keep adding blades as we need more VMs."
"They are reliable, and they hardly break down. They are fast, and they serve us very well."
"It also has a pretty solid design and management."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"It is more expensive than the competitors."
"The price of this product is too high. They should work to make it more affordable."
"Integration with storage could be improved."
"The UCS manager interface needs to be cleaned up a bit and can be streamlined, but no major complaints."
"This product uses a converged network adapter because it is the only way to provide flexibility with both fiber and ethernet connections."
"The initial setup is not easy."
"We have to have Java to manage the infrastructure. It would be great if we can manage the infrastructure through a web browser."
"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 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."
"If you compare it with Lenovo systems, the pricing is too high."
"Really look at it closely, but really look at the Synergy product as well. That seems to me like that's the next evolution of the BladeSystem."
"The management side of this solution could be improved."
"It could always use new tools."
"This product needs a wider range of firmware compatibility matrix from the oldest to the newest blade server."
"It is lacking in the ability to replicate virtual machines more easily."
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.
