We compared Cisco UCS Manager and Cisco Intersight based on our user's reviews in several parameters.
Cisco UCS Manager is praised for its ease of use, robust management capabilities, integration with other Cisco products, advanced monitoring features, and efficient resource allocation. On the other hand, Cisco Intersight is lauded for its convergence into a single platform for cloud integration, scalability, and manageability. While UCS Manager offers enhanced customer service and support, Intersight lacks sufficient information in this aspect. Additionally, UCS Manager receives positive feedback on pricing, setup, licensing, and ROI, whereas such details are unavailable for Intersight. User feedback for UCS Manager suggests a need for UI enhancements, improved user experience, better documentation, troubleshooting resources, and performance optimization, while specific areas for improvement are unclear for Intersight.
Features: Cisco UCS Manager stands out for its ease of use, robust management capabilities, efficient resource allocation, and seamless integration with other Cisco products. On the other hand, Cisco Intersight offers convergence into a single platform for cloud integration, integration with other systems, an inside view of data centers and EdgeX nodes, and high manageability.
Pricing and ROI: The setup cost for Cisco UCS Manager was deemed reasonable and straightforward, with fair and transparent licensing. On the other hand, the pricing, setup cost, and licensing for Cisco Intersight are not provided, making it difficult to compare these aspects to UCS Manager., Cisco UCS Manager has shown a positive ROI with increased productivity, reduced costs, and improved performance. Cisco Intersight's ROI is difficult to determine based on the available data.
Room for Improvement: Cisco UCS Manager has room for improvement in its user interface design, navigation, organization of features, documentation, troubleshooting resources, performance issues, and installation process. In contrast, there are no specific areas for improvement identified for Cisco Intersight.
Deployment and customer support: Based on the user reviews, there is varying feedback on the duration required to establish a new tech solution with Cisco UCS Manager. Some users mention separate timeframes for deployment and setup, while others consider them to be the same period. However, feedback for Cisco Intersight is inconclusive, making it difficult to summarize the reviews., Cisco UCS Manager is known for its efficient and helpful customer service, with prompt assistance and knowledgeable staff. On the other hand, there is insufficient information available about the customer service and support of Cisco Intersight.
The summary above is based on 15 interviews we conducted recently with Cisco UCS Manager and Cisco Intersight users. To access the review's full transcripts, download our report.
"Scalable portfolio of services for remote device management, with good cloud integration. It's also easy to set up."
"Intersight can validate our environment."
"The product has good integration."
"Provides an overall view using a single portal."
"We enjoy having an inside view of all the data centers and all the EdgeX nodes within a single portal rather than going into the EdgeX connections one by one."
"I like Intersight because of the integration with HashiCorp, Kubernetes, and each cloud because Intersight is the IO module."
"What I like most about Cisco Intersight is its manageability."
"Our organization uses Cisco Intersight since it helps manage our physical infrastructure."
"Cisco UCS has different layers of security, and you can do multiple installations of your LIAMs on top of the server and Blade. You can install VMware, Windows Server, Hyper-V, etc."
"The hardware is very powerful and it is a stable solution."
"The flexibility and the ease in which the features can be expanded are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"We can configure the Cisco UCS Manager, the profiles and interactions with the resource we manage."
"Ease of management is certainly the most valuable feature in this product."
"The interface is ergonomic and native. We can use UCS Manager to do all the configurations for the servers, including storage, networking, and all the other components we need inside the fabric. It's simple and flexible."
"It is more robust than other solutions. So, the stability is good."
"From a usability and functionality perspective, Cisco UCS Manager is very good."
"An area for improvement in Cisco Intersight is automation. It needs more automation capabilities. Apart from enhanced automation, I want Cisco Intersight to integrate with third-party monitoring tools in its next release."
"It's a very complex solution."
"Cisco Intersight needs some improvement in terms of stability. Hybrid cloud management and proper hyperscaler tie-up are other areas for improvement."
"The usability must be better."
"When new features are added, the service becomes full of bugs."
"The product's setup should be easier."
"The unique problem with Cisco Intersight is that it's not supporting some players."
"In the future, the solution needs to plan on an extension to cover a broader range of objects since, at present, there are some Cisco devices within the range of Intersight UCS that it can't manage."
"What's lacking in Cisco UCS Manager is the performance dashboard. If a blade has any performance issues, you should be able to create a dashboard on Cisco UCS Manager. Currently, this feature isn't present."
"Cisco UCS Manager should have a simplified deployment in the sense of not having multiple machines, demilitarized zones, and on-premise options."
"Cisco UCS is expensive compared to others. The Cisco UCS Chassis is more expensive than a standalone server, but some companies require standalone servers because of their production load and affordability. You need to pay more if you require more features on the Blade or if you need more ports on the switch."
"Cisco UCS Manager is not a scalable solution because once you have 160 blades, it cannot be expanded more."
"Upgrading the firmware is a difficult procedure."
"The interface and the way it is constructed is very complex. They should work to simplify it. It's quite difficult for somebody who doesn't know the product very well. Users should be able to get proficient with it faster. There's definitely room for improvement there."
"The pricing can be better."
"Its user interface can be improved. It can be more user-friendly."
Cisco Intersight is ranked 26th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 10 reviews while Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews. Cisco Intersight is rated 7.8, while Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco Intersight writes "Scalable and easy to set up portfolio of services; good for remote device management and other functions". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Cisco UCS Manager writes "Used to manage servers, monitor or manage firmware upgrades, and push policies". Cisco Intersight is most compared with HPE OneView, IBM Turbonomic, Cisco UCS Director, VMware Aria Operations and VMware Aria Automation, whereas Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView, Zabbix, Datadog and Moogsoft. See our Cisco Intersight vs. Cisco UCS Manager report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure Monitoring 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.