We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS E-Series Servers and HPE Synergy 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."
"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."
"The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability."
"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 is overall stable."
"It gives us ease of use. It's nice because we don't have to mess with networking once it's set up. Once it's done, we just put another blade in and go from there. We don't have to go back in, run more cables, deal with more data center stuff. We stick a blade in, use the server profile template, build out a server profile from that, and it just goes."
"Technical support is excellent. They are very helpful."
"The hyper-converged infrastructure where everything is stateless is valuable. Basically, you have your compute storage and networking management."
"Orchestrating automations is great because you can connect to other tools with the REST API and automate components."
"Where it used to take one week to re-image or upgrade our hosts, it can now take one day."
"The scalability is very good. The ability to link chassis or frames together makes it simplistic, especially with the use of OneView."
"Shorter delivery times. Where we now have a delivery time of about six weeks, we hope to go back to days."
"It allows for easy management."
"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 tool must be made compatible with multi-vendor ecosystems."
"The platform's pricing needs improvement. There could be more collaborative tools included."
"It is not a solution that is cloud ready."
"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."
"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."
"It has affected the productivity of our development team in a bad way. When we first stood the hardware up 18 months ago, the image streaming capacity and capability were not very good at all. We had hoped that it would allow us to be more composable and be able to switch over from one version of an operating system to another version of an operating system. However, it wasn't ready for prime time yet. Therefore, we had to go back to a deployment of bare metal install. We are still waiting and trying to figure out how we can do the composable infrastructure."
"Having a seamless DR implementation would help significantly."
"The solution must concentrate on improving the product quality."
"The post-sales activity needs improvement. There is some sort of convoluted spreadsheet that you have to fill in prior to the platform being delivered. It seems a little bit out-of-date and inefficient. Surely, there is some sort of web page configuration tool online that a customer could use. Then, it could be validated by somebody else, like a partner or HPE technical resource, then that would be a lot more efficient."
"It would be nice if the updates were not accompanied by downtime."
"We had some challenges during the implementation and a few issues afterward, but they were all sort of related to how Synergy interacts with Nexus. Our Nexus on the network side is managed by another group, and they had just gotten Nexus, so they weren't really familiar with how Nexus even worked. Getting these two to interact well was the majority of our issues. It really didn't have anything to do with Synergy. It points to know the environment that you are putting it in and making sure you are dotting all your i's and crossing all your t's when you are figuring out what their requirements are to communicate."
"The expansion was complex, because adding a second frame onto the original frame caused an outage."
"Technical support for this solution has a very good initial response; however, escalation takes time, and most of the time the first level of support cannot solve your case."
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is ranked 11th in Blade Servers with 7 reviews while HPE Synergy is ranked 1st in Blade Servers with 85 reviews. Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is rated 8.0, while HPE Synergy 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 Synergy writes "Local hard drives are not needed for the i3S module that boots to any operating system". Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is most compared with Super Micro SuperBlade, whereas HPE Synergy is most compared with HPE BladeSystem, Dell PowerEdge M, Cisco UCS B-Series, HPE Apollo and HPE Superdome X. See our Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. HPE Synergy 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.
