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 product's tech support has good people."
"Some of the features I like from this solution are it has a fast configuration, it is not complex, and has high availability."
"The solution has the ability to reuse or divide the networking, making it a flexible networking environment."
"Cisco UCS B-Series is scalable."
"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 is the service profile."
"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 stability provided by the product is its most valuable feature for our organization."
"Uptime and service are valuable for us. When we have an issue, uptime and being able to get an emergency replacement or actual service is the most important thing for us."
"The product is quite stable. Its performance is reliable."
"Virtual Fabric and interconnects are easy to configure and maintain."
"One of the most valuable features I have found to be the enclosure. It is really easy to manage and everything is integrated. You are able to upgrade the software quite easily."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is its upgradability and centralized configuration."
"The density of the BladeSystem, that we can keep adding blades as we need more VMs."
"Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features."
"It also has a pretty solid design and management."
"The cost of the solution has room for improvement."
"The price of the solution could improve."
"Its scalability could be better."
"The integration is an area where Cisco UCS B-Series needs to provide users with more details."
"We have to have Java to manage the infrastructure. It would be great if we can manage the infrastructure through a web browser."
"It needs a better UI. Cisco makes a great product, but doesn't know how to make a UI."
"It should be more user-friendly."
"The solution is expensive."
"The response time in terms of getting technical support assistance could be improved."
"The connectivity speed could be improved."
"Some part of virtual connections needs improvement."
"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."
"It could always use new tools."
"The interface in terms of management could be much more intuitive."
"It may be coming to its end of life."
"I would prefer to have changes in the compatibility of the blade servers with the new ones designed by HPE, as the top team's version does not have it."
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 and HPE Superdome X. 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.