Compare Cisco UCS B-Series vs. HPE BladeSystem
Cisco UCS B-Series is ranked 3rd in Blade Servers with 3 reviews while HPE BladeSystem is ranked 2nd in Blade Servers with 6 reviews. Cisco UCS B-Series is rated 8.4, while HPE BladeSystem is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS B-Series writes "A highly available and flexible solution with a single point of administration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE BladeSystem writes "Gives us good server density and a harmonized hardware solution". Cisco UCS B-Series is most compared with HPE Synergy, HPE BladeSystem and Dell PowerEdge M, whereas HPE BladeSystem is most compared with HPE Synergy, Cisco UCS B-Series and HPE Superdome X. See our Cisco UCS B-Series vs. HPE BladeSystem report.
Most Helpful Review | |||||
|
| ||||
 Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco UCS B-Series vs. HPE BladeSystem and other solutions. Updated: March 2020. 407,845 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |||||
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
Pros | |
The Dashboard is quite impressive and is, so far, the best based on my experience. I can connect Cisco UCS B-Series to multiple chassis and rack servers using a unified platform, then manage them on a single console. I like that the hardware is separated from the software definition of the components. | With just one cable, for redundancy let's say two, you can feed sixteen servers in a single c7000 chassis. The virtual connect and network management port is a valuable feature. The benefit is the density and the capability for global harmonization on the hardware, because all the hardware chassis are the same. We can also purchase the same network cards too, chassis by chassis, so it gives us a global solution. They have served different needs for us from virtualized web servers to dedicated databases and application servers. They are reliable, and it's relatively easy to manage them. They also regularly provide patching for the servers. I really appreciate the integrated Onboard Administrator, the iLO (Integrated Lights-Out) modular network, and the SAN Switches. |
Cons | |
There are patches that cannot be implemented without any downtime or reboot required. The configuration is a bit complex, as it requires very high technical expertise to apply it. It needs a better UI. Cisco makes a great product, but doesn't know how to make a UI. | The only side that must be improved is the active-passive interconnect module architecture. HPE BladeSystems is an old technology that cannot fit all of the dynamic organizational needs of our company. The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis. There have been some hardware failures with them. These failures have since been solved by HPE support partners. The problem is that when want to expand with a new chassis, you have to do everything manually. It's not automatic. This product needs a wider range of firmware compatibility matrix from the oldest to the newest blade server. |
Pricing and Cost Advice | |
The price of this solution is a little bit higher, but given that this system is Cisco, it feels more secure and dependable. The type of service level purchase will determine the level of support response that you receive from Cisco. | The chassis itself, with no blade server inside, so expensive. The C7000 model costs around $100,000. |
 Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Blade Servers solutions are best for your needs. 407,845 professionals have used our research since 2012. | |
Ranking  | |
Views 4,430 Comparisons 2,982 Reviews 3 Average Words per Review 434 Avg. Rating 8.3 | Views 6,827 Comparisons 4,898 Reviews 6 Average Words per Review 367 Avg. Rating 7.5 |
Top Comparisons | |
 Compared 60% of the time. Compared 14% of the time.  Compared 10% of the time. | Compared 83% of the time.  Compared 9% of the time. Compared 3% of the time. |
Also Known As | |
| UCS B-Series, Unified Computing System B-Series | HP ProLiant BL Series Servers, HP ProLiant BladeSystem, HP BladeSystem |
Learn | |
| Cisco | Hewlett Packard Enterprise |
Overview | |
| Based on Intel Xeon processor E7 and E5 product families, Cisco UCS B-Series Blade Servers work with virtualized and non-virtualized applications to increase: Performance, Energy efficiency, Flexibility and Administrator productivity. | HP ProLiant BladeSystem share power, cooling, network, and storage infrastructure via the blade enclosure. Since equipment is not needed for each server, you get a dramatic reduction in power distribution units, power cables, LAN and SAN switches, connectors, adapters, and cables. And you can add the newest-generation technologies by simply changing individual components. |
Offer | |
Learn more about Cisco UCS B-Series | Learn more about HPE BladeSystem |
Sample Customers | |
| Aegean Motorway, Anilana Hotels and Resorts, Anonymous Banking Group, Artoni Transporti, Bellevue, BH Telecom, Bowling Green State University, Children's Hospital Colorado, City of Biel, Dimension Data, Dualtec Cloud Builders, Hertz, Houston Methodist, Kuwait Petroleum Italia, Lufthansa Systems GmbH & Co.KG, Outscale, Sony Corporation, Talbots | EMIS Health |
Top Industries | |
Financial Services Firm33% Manufacturing Company22% Comms Service Provider11% University11% Software R&D Company30% Comms Service Provider16% Financial Services Firm14% Manufacturing Company6% | Financial Services Firm21% Government8% Energy/Utilities Company7% Insurance Company7% Comms Service Provider27% Software R&D Company26% Manufacturing Company11% Government7% |
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco UCS B-Series vs. HPE BladeSystem and other solutions. Updated: March 2020.
407,845 professionals have used our research since 2012.
See also Cisco UCS B-Series Reviews, HPE BladeSystem Reviews, and our list of Best Blade Servers Companies.
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.