We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers and HPE Apollo based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Rack Servers solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is very stable and easy to use. It integrates easily with Cisco's cloud-based UC solutions. There are tools for management that make the management a bit easier, but we don't use them. We don't use what you would term as power users."
"The solution is scalable."
"The product doesn't take up too much space on the rack and I like that."
"In most cases, computes compute, and there isn't much differentiation, but one point of differentiation is Intersight cloud management."
"In terms of the features that I have found most valuable, that is basically the hardware, which is more dynamic."
"What I really like about the Cisco USC Server is its service profile."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the expansion and replacement of parts."
"On the Cisco side, there is a benefit in terms of server management. Cisco provides UCS Manager, which is a multi-tenant site manager. We can manage multiple sites while maintaining disaster recovery, a feature not available on other platforms."
"We usually use three blades for two-rack units, and with enough storage, it's really a small system with a powerful CPU, powerful hard drives, powerful disks."
"We're going to buy another Apollo 6500. We may configure it with half the number of GPUs because that may be all we need. In a sense, we can see the Apollo 6500 being so powerful that we only need half the GPU capability that we have now."
"Absolutely being able to mount into Omni-Path architecture, HFIs on those nodes, because we were the very first site in the world"
"It's going to meet our needs moving forward, it is scalable."
"The solution is well documented in a data sheet."
"The technical support from HPE has always been good in my experience."
"It's very reliable. I haven't had a single failure at all in the year and a half; not the slightest problem with it."
"The cost benefit of this solution is most valuable. It is quite effective for the work for which we are using it. We are mainly running video servers on these, and we are quite happy with the resilience, density storage, and streaming capacity of the system."
"I think the pricing is high. Cisco has to look for bundling this solutions with other applications."
"There is room for better integration with other brands."
"The product's stability and delivery time could be better."
"There is very little scalability for the cluster. If you need a higher availability, there is a user limitation. So that is the low side."
"The C-Series is not designed to be as scalable. They are designed to have enough RAM and enough CPU on their own side. If you want scalability, it's better to choose the B-Series— the Blade Servers — because those are much more scalable with Fabric Interconnect."
"The price of the solution is problematic, not the solution itself. It could be less expensive."
"On the contact center and video conferencing, I would definitely like to see more AI features. The AI features are key for us. You will find a lot of them in the cloud-based solution, but in the on-premises solution, they're hardly there. I would like to see the same AI features that are there in the cloud-based Cisco UC."
"The improvement should be done as per customer requirements."
"I would want to see the flexibility of being able to run various network protocols including InfiniBand, Fibre Channel, as well as iSCSI, with iSCSI going up to 100 gigabytes per second -that would be outstanding."
"The predictive analysis feature could be improved."
"We are quite happy with it, but its price and storage density can be better."
"There is a shared battery for all cache controllers in the node. When you have to replace that element, you have to take down all three nodes and not just one."
"What's coming out in Gen 10 is very strong in terms of additional security."
"HPE Apollo's after-sales support and technical support should be improved."
"The solution's deployment, security, and scalability need improvement."
"The technical support from HPE has always been good in my experience."
More Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers Pricing and Cost Advice →
Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is ranked 5th in Rack Servers with 29 reviews while HPE Apollo is ranked 6th in Rack Servers with 22 reviews. Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is rated 8.4, while HPE Apollo is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers writes "The VIC card is the most important feature". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE Apollo writes "An affordable and easy-to-implement solution, but its after-sales support and technical support should be improved". Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers is most compared with Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers, HPE ProLiant DL Servers, Lenovo ThinkSystem Rack Servers, Dell XR2 Rugged Server and HPE Synergy, whereas HPE Apollo is most compared with HPE ProLiant DL Servers, Dell PowerEdge Rack Servers, HPE Synergy, Dell PowerEdge FX and PowerEdge C. See our Cisco UCS C-Series Rack Servers vs. HPE Apollo report.
See our list of best Rack Servers vendors and best Density Optimized Servers vendors.
We monitor all Rack 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.
