No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs Dell PowerEdge MX- Series comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Mar 8, 2026

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Cisco UCS E-Series Servers
Ranking in Blade Servers
10th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Dell PowerEdge MX- Series
Ranking in Blade Servers
1st
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
36
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2026, in the Blade Servers category, the mindshare of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is 3.8%, up from 2.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Dell PowerEdge MX- Series is 8.9%, down from 17.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Blade Servers Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
Dell PowerEdge MX- Series8.9%
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers3.8%
Other87.3%
Blade Servers
 

Featured Reviews

AK
Solution Architect at COPYCAT LIMITED
Automation and integration capabilities streamline IT infrastructure management
The most valuable feature of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is the Cisco interface. The server management and automation capabilities have been outstanding in automation, greatly benefiting our IT team. Pricing is acceptable, and these servers have had a significant impact on cost savings and operational efficiency. The integration with Cisco routers simplifies the IT infrastructure.
Md. Shohel Rawshan Sarker - PeerSpot reviewer
Assistant Vice President at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
Blade platform has supported clustered production workloads and delivers strong performance
In the industry, there are currently blade solutions from Dell, HP, Lenovo, and Cisco. Compared to those, all blade solutions are similar in design. In the chassis, there is a back panel where each blade has a card module that plugs into the blade chassis. The chassis contains a network switch as well as a SAN switch. The SAN switch and network switch combined to the blade module provide plug-and-play functionality. The throughput is also good. Dell PowerEdge MX- Series currently has two types of processors with speeds of 2.1 and 2.3 GHz, possibly 2.2 GHz as well. All applications in our environment run on these processors. However, I think the processor speed should be higher because the coming applications are all AI-based and require more powerful processing. As of now, there is no issue with the current processor clock speed for our running applications. They are all Gold processors. In our environment, we have designed a setup with Dell PowerEdge MX- Series chassis with two network switches in the back panel. The two network switches connect to the main upstream network switch with link aggregation protocol (LACP) bonding. Currently, 160 gig, 40, 40, 80, and 80 gig bandwidth is running. The throughput is 80 gig total. Each blade server has a 20 gig network connection and will get a maximum of 20 gig network bandwidth, while the total chassis will deliver a maximum of 80 gig bandwidth. However, it can go up to 160 gig because the upstream network switch supports QSFP+ modules that are 40 gig each, with two 40 gig connections totaling 80 gig. Dell PowerEdge MX- Series also includes a SAN switch. The SAN switch is in the back panel of the chassis and connects to our main central SAN switch, which is connected to central storage. It is easy to onboard our central storage to the blade server as required, and there is no issue with that. The benefits include the fact that Dell PowerEdge MX- Series blade servers have sixteen blade servers in a single chassis, which consumes minimal space in the rack and data center, as well as requiring minimal cabling. For cabling, there are only four network cables connected to the main upstream switch. When connected to the SAN switch, there are only four additional cables, totaling eight cables to the SAN switch. This results in no messy cables in the data center. Additionally, the performance is good enough based on our current applications running on the servers.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The most valuable features are that they are efficient and easy to setup."
"Cisco UCS E-Series Servers have been reliable, and it took almost five years for any hardware failure, which was only about a $100 repair, so nothing too major."
"Cisco has better visibility and manageability for disaster recovery."
"Overall, the Cisco chassis is pretty good, pretty stable and easier to configure as compared to HP and others."
"The server management and automation capabilities have been outstanding in automation, greatly benefiting our IT team."
"Stability-wise, it is a good product that remains stable."
"The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability."
"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."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Using Dell PowerEdge MX- Series has helped reduce unplanned production downtime by approximately 60 to 70 percent."
"I rate Dell PowerEdge a ten out of ten as it is a great tool with perfect support."
"The networking features for administration and working with the server are valuable."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its interface."
"The initial setup is straightforward."
"The solution's most valuable features are centralized monitoring and management and the ease of upgrading firmware."
"What I like about Dell PowerEdge MX-Series is the whole integration, where you do not have a lot of cables, which is a strong point compared to others on the market."
 

Cons

"The platform's pricing needs improvement. There could be more collaborative tools included."
"I am always asked to justify why we should purchase such expensive hardware when there are other brand names available with same capacity for a lesser price."
"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 tool must be made compatible with multi-vendor ecosystems."
"It is not a solution that is cloud ready."
"I would like to see improvements in VMware integration with Cisco, especially in terms of documentation and integration tools. Support of NVIDIA integration would also make it better."
"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."
"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 biggest challenge happens when you have compact boxes such as Dell PowerEdge MX- Series. Managing or maintaining the server ratio within a rack becomes jumbled up because per rack you get a limited power capacity."
"Dell support should be faster."
"Technical support from Dell is not good. I rate it a zero out of five."
"There is room for improvement in scalability."
"The caching is a bit weak, which can make the hardware non-responsive, especially on hypervisor layers like ESXi or Hyper-V."
"The set up is complex."
"More interconnections with third party equipment and limited I/O selection."
"Compared to other solutions, this blade server requires more stability."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."
"The product is expensive."
"There is a need to pay towards the licensing costs of the solution. The most expensive server from Cisco is Cisco UCS B-Series."
"It's expensive, they are quite pricey."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable. From a commercial point of view, the prices are okay."
"The product is budget-friendly. The initial cost for each server was around 10,000 euros. It's a standard price, not too high or too low."
"The solution's pricing is slightly higher."
"If we would not have gone with the vendor we might have been charged unnecessarily for packages we did not need."
"The cost varies significantly depending on the server's configuration and can range from $10,000 to $60,000 for the same server line family."
"I know we get three years basic, and the on-site licensing model for business seems fine. I wouldn't pay for a support plus or anything."
"The product is neither expensive nor cheap. It is manageable for medium enterprises as well."
"Dell PowerEdge M price is comparable to other solutions but cheaper than IBM. However, the IBM solution is a higher grade solution whereas Dell PowerEdge M is a medium-level solution."
"The pricing of PowerEdge Next is higher than it was before."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Blade Servers solutions are best for your needs.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
18%
Computer Software Company
9%
Wholesaler/Distributor
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Financial Services Firm
16%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Outsourcing Company
9%
Computer Software Company
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business14
Midsize Enterprise6
Large Enterprise16
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco UCS E-Series Servers?
The pricing of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is okay, costing around 30,000 per year. Support is included in this cost.
What needs improvement with Cisco UCS E-Series Servers?
I would like to see improvements in VMware integration with Cisco, especially in terms of documentation and integration tools. Support of NVIDIA integration would also make it better.
What is your primary use case for Cisco UCS E-Series Servers?
I use Cisco UCS E-Series Servers ( /products/cisco-ucs-e-series-servers-reviews ) for managing our IT infrastructure and supporting AI-driven projects. The integration with Cisco routers simplifies...
What do you like most about Dell PowerEdge M?
The best feature is the idrac tools, which allows me to manage/config the platform from the Linux level.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Dell PowerEdge M?
From a cost standpoint, you have different use cases to cater. The first one is if you need to have ideal distribution maintained between the application and redundancies or resilience needs to be ...
What needs improvement with Dell PowerEdge M?
They can work on power consumption, which is probably not a direct feedback for Dell, but I would say the input power consumption itself is a challenge because the rated power is pretty high. This ...
 

Also Known As

UCS E-Series Servers
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Navaho,  MiroNet AG, Columbia Sportswear
Newport City Homes, Neuroblastoma and Medulloblastoma Translational Research Consortium (NMTRC), Georgian College, AgreeYa Solutions, IIHT Cloud Solutions, Arizona State University, AudienceScience, University of the Incarnate Word (UIW), The Translational Genomics Research Institute (TGen), Holy Cross School
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. Dell PowerEdge MX- Series and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
902,988 professionals have used our research since 2012.