We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS E-Series Servers and Dell PowerEdge M 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."The most valuable features are that they are efficient and easy to setup."
"The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability."
"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."
"Stability-wise, it is a good product that remains stable."
"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."
"I have compared Dell EMC to other solutions and have found it to be good. The SAN and LAN traffic, manageability, and upgradability are all good."
"It's great for managing overall infrastructure."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The solution integrated well."
"The networking features for administration and working with the server are valuable."
"The solution's most valuable features are centralized monitoring and management and the ease of upgrading firmware."
"The solution is made with high-quality hardware."
"The solution offers remarkable flexibility, reliability, and extensive software support."
"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 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."
"It is not a solution that is cloud ready."
"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 processing capacity could be improved."
"The tool must be made compatible with multi-vendor ecosystems."
"In terms of improvement, it should also offer a hyper-converged option."
"Technical support is not good."
"More interconnections with third party equipment and limited I/O selection."
"The set up is complex"
"Dell PowerEdge M needs to run AMD CPUs on it."
"Can be improved by being proactive in making changes that could improve the solution."
"We have had some issues with the vendor's support that we have received. When you open up a support case with Dell they send a partner to assist you and in our experience, they are lacking knowledge about the solution. There are times when you need professional support from the vendor that knows the solution well."
"It requires time to transition to the new generation."
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is ranked 11th in Blade Servers with 7 reviews while Dell PowerEdge M is ranked 4th in Blade Servers with 14 reviews. Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is rated 8.0, while Dell PowerEdge M 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 Dell PowerEdge M writes "Average pricing and good feature sets but is complex to set up". Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is most compared with Super Micro SuperBlade, whereas Dell PowerEdge M is most compared with HPE Synergy, HPE Superdome X, Cisco UCS B-Series, Super Micro SuperBlade and HPE BladeSystem. See our Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. Dell PowerEdge M 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.