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.
"Intersight can validate our environment."
"Scalable portfolio of services for remote device management, with good cloud integration. It's also easy to set up."
"Cisco Intersight has valuable features for workflow automation and inventory administration."
"Provides an overall view using a single portal."
"The product has good integration."
"What I like most about Cisco Intersight is its manageability."
"The tool helps to manage Cisco servers."
"I like Intersight because of the integration with HashiCorp, Kubernetes, and each cloud because Intersight is the IO module."
"The hardware is very powerful and it is a stable solution."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and management."
"It is more robust than other solutions. So, the stability is good."
"The solution is highly scalable, mainly because of the templates that make it easy for you to actually edit on the system."
"The flexibility and the ease in which the features can be expanded are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"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."
"From a usability and functionality perspective, Cisco UCS Manager is very good."
"Cisco Infrastructure is one of the top vendors and no one can beat them in terms of switching and routing."
"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."
"The product's setup should be easier."
"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."
"The unique problem with Cisco Intersight is that it's not supporting some players."
"The solution needs some enhancement in order to build the cluster in two nodes."
"When new features are added, the service becomes full of bugs."
"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 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."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the software part of Cisco UCS Manager. It should be more user-friendly, especially when creating policies."
"In the next release, I would like to see improvements made to their security."
"The pricing can be better."
"Cisco UCS Manager is not a scalable solution because once you have 160 blades, it cannot be expanded more."
"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."
"We have three data centers and if we could manage all three data centers using one interface, it would be great."
Cisco Intersight is ranked 26th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 10 reviews while Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 30th 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 "Stable and resilient, but slightly more complicated to deploy". Cisco Intersight is most compared with HPE OneView, IBM Turbonomic, Cisco UCS Director, VMware Aria Automation and VMware Aria Operations, whereas Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView, Zabbix, Datadog and ServiceNow IT Operations Management. 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.
