We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS E-Series Servers and HPE BladeSystem 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 product is overall stable."
"Stability-wise, it is a good product that remains stable."
"They are really easy to maintain. I've added RAM to them. I've done a lot of other things with the virtualization."
"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 most valuable features are that they are efficient and easy to setup."
"Cisco has better visibility and manageability for disaster recovery."
"The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability."
"The product is quite stable. Its performance is reliable."
"HPE BladeSystem provides good commuting performance."
"The most valuable feature of the HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management and the robust design."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management. It is easy to communicate from the server to the storage."
"I really appreciate the integrated Onboard Administrator, the iLO (Integrated Lights-Out) modular network, and the SAN Switches."
"It is very stable."
"HPE BladeSystem is a scalable solution. It is a composable infrastructure which we can manage our external services. This is the one factor which I can see the server is much more suitable for the OneView console."
"The solution is issue-free and works almost flawlessly."
"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."
"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 platform's pricing needs improvement. There could be more collaborative tools included."
"The processing capacity could be improved."
"It is not a solution that is cloud ready."
"The tool must be made compatible with multi-vendor ecosystems."
"I would like OneView to go over the current limit of 40 instances."
"We have not needed to contact support because we have not had an issue. However, the partner support we had could improve. There are some disadvantages compared to Dell. The questions that are asked from the support are too lengthy, this causes a delay in support."
"The tool must provide integration with the cloud."
"HPE BladeSystem can improve by providing the latest generation processor engine, such as the I-Flex processor."
"The integration and price of HPE BladeSystem could be improved."
"It could always use new tools."
"The scalability is limited because you only have a 16-server by chassis."
"It may be coming to its end of life."
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is ranked 11th in Blade Servers with 7 reviews while HPE BladeSystem is ranked 2nd in Blade Servers with 134 reviews. Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is rated 8.0, while HPE BladeSystem is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers writes "Easy to configure and operate". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE BladeSystem writes "Very reliable, expands well, and is pretty simple to set up". Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is most compared with Super Micro SuperBlade, whereas HPE BladeSystem is most compared with HPE Synergy, Cisco UCS B-Series, Dell PowerEdge M, Super Micro SuperBlade and HPE Superdome X. See our Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. HPE BladeSystem 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.
