Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs PowerEdge C 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
12th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
PowerEdge C
Ranking in Blade Servers
7th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.3
Number of Reviews
29
Ranking in other categories
Density Optimized Servers (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the Blade Servers category, the mindshare of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is 2.9%, up from 1.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of PowerEdge C is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Blade Servers
 

Featured Reviews

DavidMbugua - PeerSpot reviewer
Stable product with efficient security features
We use Cisco UCS E-Series Servers to host enterprise systems The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability. We rarely encounter downtime issues, and it has an expandable memory storage. Additionally, it blends well with Cisco's security tools. The platform's pricing…
Naveen Radhwani - PeerSpot reviewer
Offers great performance and customization for application servers
There are a few bugs in PowerEdge C that require some configurational settings to be done with the help of a support team when we reconfigure the solution. This is one area where they can improve the performance of the server or implement some application improvements in the solution to make it easier for end users to implement properly.

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."
"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 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."
"Cisco has better visibility and manageability for disaster recovery."
"The server management and automation capabilities have been outstanding in automation, greatly benefiting our IT team."
"The product is overall stable."
"Stability-wise, it is a good product that remains stable."
"Every new version is better than the previous one."
"I have found the compression capability the most valuable feature."
"The product has high performance and no downtime."
"It is a scalable platform."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The scalability of the product is good since it offers high performance and capacity."
"With the tool, we can easily upgrade and ensure compatibility between operating systems, hardwares and drivers. Among other features, the hardware also stands out because it is certified and aligns with the processor manufacturers like Intel. This enables them to offer the latest options which are not available with other suppliers."
"The initial setup is not complex. It's a user-friendly tool."
 

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."
"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 platform's pricing needs improvement. There could be more collaborative tools included."
"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."
"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."
"It is not a solution that is cloud ready."
"The processing capacity could be improved."
"They could automate or simplify it more."
"The solution’s pricing could be cheaper."
"Its customer service could be better."
"Customer service and support have been generally helpful but can be slow due to the need to navigate different specialists."
"A feature that needs to be added is the ability for full container storage."
"It would be better if it worked with SMTP servers on the cloud. Right now, it only allows notifications via the SMTP server. In the next release, I would like to have a better processor."
"It would be easier if data center management and disaster recovery were combined."
"It should be improved in terms of future expansion. We should be able to have additional free slots for future extensions in terms of memory."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is expensive."
"It's expensive, they are quite pricey."
"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."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable. From a commercial point of view, the prices are okay."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
"The cost depends on the configuration."
"The licensing cost of PowerEdge C is very high."
"The price could be reduced."
"When we talk about pricing it is the cheapest on the market that I have found."
"I would rate the pricing 4 out of 10, in terms of its cost expense."
"PowerEdge C is very expensive, but personally, I think it's worth the price."
"PowerEdge C is a reasonably priced product, and the pricing depends on how many years you need the product. The cost also includes the support."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Blade Servers solutions are best for your needs.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Venture Capital & Private Equity Firm
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Comms Service Provider
9%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Cisco UCS E-Series Servers?
The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability.
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 do you like most about PowerEdge C?
The solution provides good support and service.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for PowerEdge C?
My experience with the pricing of this tool is that it's in mid-range. They have good competitors in the market who are offering better pricing, so there is scope for improvement in this area.
What needs improvement with PowerEdge C?
There are a few bugs in PowerEdge C that require some configurational settings to be done with the help of a support team when we reconfigure the solution. This is one area where they can improve t...
 

Also Known As

UCS E-Series Servers
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Navaho,  MiroNet AG, Columbia Sportswear
NxtGen Datacenter, Medien-Service Untermain (MSU), Exasol, IndigoVision, Dayco
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. PowerEdge C and other solutions. Updated: July 2025.
865,384 professionals have used our research since 2012.