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

Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs HPE BladeSystem comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 3, 2025

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
HPE BladeSystem
Ranking in Blade Servers
2nd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
140
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2026, in the Blade Servers category, the mindshare of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is 3.8%, up from 2.4% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of HPE BladeSystem is 8.6%, down from 13.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Blade Servers Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
HPE BladeSystem8.6%
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers3.8%
Other87.6%
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.
Kapil Pandey - PeerSpot reviewer
Technology Management Consultant at National Institute for Smart Government - NISG
Reliability and reasonable pricing enhance data center management
I researched on peerspot.com about IT solutions, specifically about HPE BladeSystem and HPE Synergy, because we are already using HP servers in our state data center. In HP Cloud System, we are using a converged infrastructure to connect LAN and SAN connectivity across the network. Regarding Virtual Connect technology, there is a noticeable impact on network management. For day-to-day operations, we use various applications such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams to connect virtually. Using HPE BladeSystem Virtual Connect technology in HP Cloud System, we achieve efficient network management with well-defined LAN and SAN connectivity. We already have a defined modular architecture in place designed by the HP team for our data center. My company name is National Institute for Smart Government, also called NISG, under the National e-Governance Division. My title is Technology Management Consultant. I would rate HPE BladeSystem as an eight out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"The product is overall stable."
"What I can advise other prospective customers is that they should not worry about Cisco's support, stability, and performance."
"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."
"The server management and automation capabilities have been outstanding in automation, greatly benefiting our IT team."
"The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability."
"The solution is very easy to use; it's user-friendly and simple to navigate, the space conservation it provides is excellent, it helps compact the server, the product is quite stable, its performance is reliable, and the solution can scale so a company can expand it if it wants to."
"It is very stable."
"It is not expensive."
"Items which are more cost-effective have a greater tendency to be refurbished."
"The solution is one of the best in terms of providing an excellent ROI to its users."
"Go for it you will not regret it, and you will be moving to a better consolidated and converged infrastructure that is easy to manage and highly scalable."
"HPE BladeSystem was introduced by me as an architect to boost the performance/server footprint, especially with VMware virtualization."
"They are reliable, and they hardly break down; they are fast, and they serve us very well."
 

Cons

"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."
"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."
"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."
"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."
"I think that's probably one of the biggest failure points with Cisco, from their documentation all the way to their products."
"The tool must be made compatible with multi-vendor ecosystems."
"BladeSystem is an old-fashioned server and not very well developed for new features and new areas of data centers, which is not very good for enterprise companies."
"With our initial purchase, we bought three chassis and maybe 15 or 20 blades. Out of that, we had probably a 20% failure rate within the first few weeks."
"There could be more management capability to work with integrations."
"Management Monitoring."
"The web interface is Java based and we had issues with different version of Java."
"OA updates and upgrades have to be made simpler."
"I would like to see improvement regarding scalability and deployment in the area of support."
"The only side that must be improved is the active-passive interconnect module architecture."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."
"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 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."
"We have been satisfied with the price. However, there are additional costs for support."
"There is a one-time purchase for the HPE BladeSystem."
"The prices for the HPE Virtual Connect Modules are expensive compared to other I/O Modules available."
"Regarding the cost, HPE BladeSystem is not cheap. The solution and its support are costly, and there are challenges with renewal and pricing, especially in Nigeria, due to the dollar rate and FX issues. However, it is reliable. I don't have specific figures for licensing costs, as the procurement and finance departments handle them."
"it would make everyone happy if the solution were less expensive."
"It is not expensive, really, in this class of server products."
"Add OneView and ILO advanced to the base product. Don’t adjust the price, but just include them."
"The pricing is competitive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Blade Servers solutions are best for your needs.
893,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
18%
Construction Company
10%
Marketing Services Firm
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business29
Midsize Enterprise40
Large Enterprise104
 

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...
How would you choose between HPE's Bladesystem and Synergy?
For me, choosing between HPE’s Bladesystem and Synergy came down to which solution was more powerful, reliable, and stable. It turns out Bladesystem was the winner. Bladesystem is excellent because...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for HPE BladeSystem?
With around 19 years of exposure in working with various servers, including HPE, I encounter challenges in identifying reasonable prices during the setup cost and licensing process, especially for ...
What needs improvement with HPE BladeSystem?
The main area for improvement I see is the training process. When you use anything, how easily it is to manage is very important in hyper-converged solutions. If you compare it with VMware, it is v...
 

Also Known As

UCS E-Series Servers
HP ProLiant BL Series Servers, HP ProLiant BladeSystem
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Navaho,  MiroNet AG, Columbia Sportswear
EMIS Health
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. HPE BladeSystem and other solutions. Updated: April 2026.
893,311 professionals have used our research since 2012.