We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and HPE OneView based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Technical support has been good so far. We haven't had any issues with them. We're satisfied with the level of service they provide our company."
"The reporting functionality will give you any report you want."
"Cisco Infrastructure is one of the top vendors and no one can beat them in terms of switching and routing."
"We can configure the Cisco UCS Manager, the profiles and interactions with the resource we manage."
"What I like most about Cisco UCS Manager is the ease of administration. It also allows the central management of maintenance, installation, and configuration activities."
"The hardware is very powerful and it is a stable solution."
"Ease of management is certainly the most valuable feature in this product."
"The flexibility and the ease in which the features can be expanded are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"We cannot function without this solution. "
"Easy to see if all my servers are on correct firmware levels, with SPP packaging."
"If you have a lot of devices, like we do, then you have to have one single pane of view, otherwise we lose too much time. So, we needed this type of solution."
"It's rather simple to use, and that's very important for us."
"Easy to add servers and get them monitored and manageable."
"Provides the strongest support for automation."
"We could literally swap out a piece of hardware, slide one back into the chassis, and immediately - about three reboots later - it was identical. We didn't have to worry about configuring it, we didn't have to spend any time getting anything into place. It came back and it healed the environment almost immediately."
"The best part is that you can integrate a two-way network. Earlier we could not manage the storage and ToR switch. Now we can create a LAN with our storage without any interface. In terms of switch management, it is now easy to understand the current configuration. It provides centralized management. It provides a single pane, and you can easily do all updates in one shot. It is a great product."
"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."
"I would like to see Cisco UCS optionally work as a hyper-converged system because right now, it only operates as a converged system."
"Upgrading the firmware is a difficult procedure."
"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."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to their security."
"Its user interface can be improved. It can be more user-friendly."
"The integration with other solutions could be better. I think Cisco can only integrate using Intersight. There is a second interface available as a SaaS platform, in the cloud, or on-premise. It's based on the Redfish protocol, which is standard for all the B-series servers in the market. We can integrate other solutions using API."
"I found it a bit of a challenge to get training on UCSM. I've been trying to get that for some time now. I feel like I have to figure it out a lot of things myself. For years I've to log calls with support whenever I've got challenges that I cannot resolve. If I had some training or more manuals, I'd be better able to handle more things on my own."
"The network configuration part of HPE OneView needs improvement. The solution has way too many features, and there's a need for proper configuration indicators to be put in place."
"Those features, coming in version 4, that we're looking for are the discovery, primarily. But I think the scope-based access control is of interest, although, we didn't see any directory integration, so that, in itself, seems like it's still limited."
"One thing which is missing is that you can't actually log a support call yourself."
"We have a version 3 and a version 1.2, but the upgrade process from the 1.2 to the 3 is kind of an issue."
"Technical support is not very good. The engineers do not know a lot about the product, even when asked simplistic questions."
"The main problem that we run into, as far as stability goes, is when something loses its profile. Sometimes it requires jumping through a number of "hoops" to really get it back."
"The solution could add storage, integration services, and end-to-end support for Cisco switches or other competitor products."
"It would be better if we can add every HPE device to OneView, such as MSA, as well as the other servers like the DL server and ML server."
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews while HPE OneView is ranked 17th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 80 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while HPE OneView is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS Manager writes "Used to manage servers, monitor or manage firmware upgrades, and push policies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE OneView writes "Provides firmware compliance and the ability to connect to iPO". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, Zabbix, Datadog and Moogsoft, whereas HPE OneView is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Dell CloudIQ, Zabbix, Lenovo XClarity Orchestrator and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. HPE OneView 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.
