We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS E-Series Servers and HPE BladeSystem based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Blade Servers solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."They are really easy to maintain. I've added RAM to them. I've done a lot of other things with the virtualization."
"Stability-wise, it is a good product that remains stable."
"The product is overall stable."
"The Cisco chassis is very easy to configure and any network engineer or expert can configure the solution and easily integrate it with the chassis."
"Cisco has better visibility and manageability for disaster recovery."
"The most valuable features are that they are efficient and easy to setup."
"The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability."
"It is not expensive."
"When it comes to the BladeSystem, what we love about it most is being able to actually manage it using OneView."
"Its ease of management, consolidation, connectivity, power, and cooling are the most valuable features."
"It is very stable."
"The solution is scalable, offering flexibility and expansion options to meet changing business needs."
"It's very scalable."
"The most valuable feature, of course, is its size as I can build a huge compute resource on it."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management. It is easy to communicate from the server to the storage."
"The processing capacity could be improved."
"It is not a solution that is cloud ready."
"The tool must be made compatible with multi-vendor ecosystems."
"The biggest pain point for us is the matrix for the firmware upgrades. It is a pain. You look at that thing, you might as well be reading Greek. It would be a whole lot better if they could clean up their documentation on it."
"The product should also be available in a standard edition or a standard license since currently there is a need to pay for an extra license, which is very expensive, especially when considering the budgeting part of our company."
"The platform's pricing needs improvement. There could be more collaborative tools included."
"One thing that could be improved is the cost - it is very high for this Blade chassis as compared to other vendors. Especially in Asia. Asian customers mostly prefer a cost effective, cheaper solution."
"I rate the stability of HPE BladeSystem a nine out of ten."
"There have been some hardware failures with them. These failures have since been solved by HPE support partners."
"Really look at it closely, but really look at the Synergy product as well. That seems to me like that's the next evolution of the BladeSystem."
"The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis."
"If the hardware offered higher efficiency, that would be an ideal situation for our company."
"HPE BladeSystem can improve proactive monitoring."
"The servers are a little bit huge, so it would be great if they could renew the size."
"It could always use new tools."
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is ranked 11th in Blade Servers with 7 reviews while HPE BladeSystem is ranked 2nd in Blade Servers with 134 reviews. Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is rated 8.0, while HPE BladeSystem is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers writes "Easy to configure and operate". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE BladeSystem writes "Very reliable, expands well, and is pretty simple to set up". Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is most compared with Super Micro SuperBlade, whereas HPE BladeSystem is most compared with HPE Synergy, Cisco UCS B-Series, Dell PowerEdge M, Super Micro SuperBlade and HPE Superdome X. See our Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. HPE BladeSystem report.
See our list of best Blade Servers vendors.
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.
