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."Great security and functionality."
"The ratio in terms of the number of units and the number of servers that we can get each chassis is quite good."
"It is less time-consuming to deploy the software."
"From a return on investment perspective, Cisco UCS B-Series is worth the money."
"The product is easy to use."
"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 solution has the ability to reuse or divide the networking, making it a flexible networking environment."
"The platform has valuable features for management and good monitoring tools. It provides efficient insights."
"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."
"It also has a pretty solid design and management."
"With just one cable, for redundancy let's say two, you can feed sixteen servers in a single c7000 chassis."
"The benefit is the density and the capability for global harmonization on the hardware, because all the hardware chassis are the same. We can also purchase the same network cards too, chassis by chassis, so it gives us a global solution."
"The solution uses a smaller space in our data centers. It uses less feeder and network cable, which reduces costs."
"Virtual Fabric and interconnects are easy to configure and maintain."
"Remote management features are valuable."
"The interface and dashboard are excellent and user-friendly."
"The initial setup process is complex."
"The cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"Cisco could improve the user-friendliness for less experienced users."
"The upgrades could be improved."
"This model does not support virtualization of the switch."
"There is a delay in the product's reporting and the rebooting system compared to servers from other vendors."
"It needs a better UI. Cisco makes a great product, but doesn't know how to make a UI."
"Integration with storage could be improved."
"The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis."
"I would like to see the upgrade path a little bit smoother."
"The tool must provide integration with the cloud."
"HPE BladeSystem could improve the communication between the server and the storage."
"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 price of the solution has room for improvement."
"The solution could improve by having more automation, such as the automatic mapping feature that is available in the Synergy Blade series."
"HPE BladeSystem that we are using is currently very old. It's not too good. We haven't renewed it. I would like the solution to have more updates."
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.