We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS E-Series Servers and HPE Integrity 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."Cisco has better visibility and manageability for disaster recovery."
"They are really easy to maintain. I've added RAM to them. I've done a lot of other things with the virtualization."
"The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability."
"The product is overall stable."
"The most valuable features are that they are efficient and easy to setup."
"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."
"Stability-wise, it is a good product that remains stable."
"It is very fast and easy to use."
"We have what is called a chief data care center support. This is the highest level of support they have. We have been very happy with the support we have received."
"What I like about HPE Integrity servers is how stable and easy to use they are."
"The product's most valuable features are troubleshooting and monitoring."
"HPE Integrity is a reliable solution, but you'll need to refurbish the hardware because it's approaching the end of sale."
"The benefit provided by the solution for my organization stems from the fact that it provides maximum reliability and availability to users."
"The tool provides good performance and productivity."
"It is not a solution that is cloud ready."
"The tool must be made compatible with multi-vendor ecosystems."
"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."
"The processing capacity could be improved."
"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 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."
"HPE Integrity is a pain. HPE hasn't put much work into developing the solution in the past few years because it will be discontinued soon."
"The monitoring is an area that needs some improvement."
"Unlike other platforms, it lacks easy integration with popular cloud services like Office 365."
"HPE Integrity needs improvement in terms of pricing for scalability."
"The manageability must be improved."
"The virtualization of HPE Integrity could be simplified. We have discussed this issue with HPE and hopefully, they will have an update."
"HPE Integrity has always been one step behind in areas like virtualization technologies, cloud enablement, the speed of backups, and replication."
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is ranked 11th in Blade Servers with 7 reviews while HPE Integrity is ranked 7th in Blade Servers with 19 reviews. Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is rated 8.0, while HPE Integrity is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers writes "Easy to configure and operate". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE Integrity writes "Highly stable, straightforward, and easy to use". Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is most compared with Super Micro SuperBlade, whereas HPE Integrity is most compared with Super Micro SuperBlade, HPE Superdome X and HPE Synergy. See our Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. HPE Integrity 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.
