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."From a return on investment perspective, Cisco UCS B-Series is worth the money."
"The solution's most valuable feature is KVM Launch Manager."
"I like that the hardware is separated from the software definition of the components."
"The initial setup is simple, and not very complex."
"The stability provided by the product is its most valuable feature for our organization."
"The hardware is easily swappable and, utilizing the boot from SAN option, you can always keep your server intact due to the service profiles."
"Since its UCS release in 2009, Cisco has extended the core functionality with Central, a tool for managing multiple domains"
"The product is easy to use."
"I really appreciate the integrated Onboard Administrator, the iLO (Integrated Lights-Out) modular network, and the SAN Switches."
"The solution has high performance."
"HPE BladeSystem is very easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is its high availability."
"Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features."
"The solution has good performance."
"The most valuable feature of the HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management."
"The solution has good scalability."
"It needs a better UI. Cisco makes a great product, but doesn't know how to make a UI."
"This product uses a converged network adapter because it is the only way to provide flexibility with both fiber and ethernet connections."
"The configuration is a bit complex, as it requires very high technical expertise to apply it."
"Compared to the deployment of servers such as Dell XCDs, the deployment of UCS servers is more complex. They take longer to deploy."
"This model does not support virtualization of the switch."
"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 cost is expensive and has room for improvement."
"Its scalability could be better."
"I would like OneView to go over the current limit of 40 instances."
"The management side of this solution could be improved."
"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."
"It would be nice if the solution were cheaper."
"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."
"The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis."
"HPE BladeSystem could improve the communication between the server and the storage."
"HPE BladeSystem can improve proactive monitoring."
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.