We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and HPE OneView based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two IT Infrastructure Monitoring solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I can deploy something in my 50-odd servers all in one go, in parallel, whereas if I was to do that individually, it could be a nightmare."
"Cisco Infrastructure is one of the top vendors and no one can beat them in terms of switching and routing."
"We can configure the Cisco UCS Manager, the profiles and interactions with the resource we manage."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and management."
"Ease of management is certainly the most valuable feature in this product."
"It is more robust than other solutions. So, the stability is good."
"I can quickly manage the provisioned servers."
"The reporting functionality will give you any report you want."
"We have the dashboard up on a big screen, and you can actually see when things go wrong or if there are any faults with any of the servers. The backup is automated as well, so the appliance is quite good."
"It is very stable. We have had no downtime nor issues in approximately a year. "
"Administration-wise it's going to be easier. More smooth and more flexible."
"Gives the business interfaces to view real-time pictures of IT business services."
"The easy user interface was what I found most valuable in HPE OneView. For example, if I wanted to know the infrastructure status or I needed to send in any change commands, HPE OneView had simple buttons."
"The remote support automatically logs service calls and support cases with HPE, which is really good."
"It's rather simple to use, and that's very important for us."
"Provides the strongest support for automation."
"We have three data centers and if we could manage all three data centers using one interface, it would be great."
"Cisco UCS Manager should have a simplified deployment in the sense of not having multiple machines, demilitarized zones, and on-premise options."
"The automation within the solution needs to be simplified."
"The interface and the way it is constructed is very complex. They should work to simplify it. It's quite difficult for somebody who doesn't know the product very well. Users should be able to get proficient with it faster. There's definitely room for improvement there."
"The integration with other solutions could be better. I think Cisco can only integrate using Intersight. There is a second interface available as a SaaS platform, in the cloud, or on-premise. It's based on the Redfish protocol, which is standard for all the B-series servers in the market. We can integrate other solutions using API."
"What's lacking in Cisco UCS Manager is the performance dashboard. If a blade has any performance issues, you should be able to create a dashboard on Cisco UCS Manager. Currently, this feature isn't present."
"Cisco UCS Manager is not a scalable solution because once you have 160 blades, it cannot be expanded more."
"Upgrading the firmware is a difficult procedure."
"I had some minor difficulties with upgrading, but the solution still works fine."
"The interface is a bit bland. It does its job, but it could have a better interface."
"We've had a few issues. We just upgraded to the 3.9.0 version. We think that now that we are on that version, hopefully a lot of those things are going to go away for us."
"It's a little slow sometimes. Overall, I think it does what it's supposed to do. I think that as they evolve it, it'll get quicker."
"It would be better if we can add every HPE device to OneView, such as MSA, as well as the other servers like the DL server and ML server."
"HPE OneView should be able to cover more device models apart from ProLiant and Synergy."
"The main problem that we run into, as far as stability goes, is when something loses its profile. Sometimes it requires jumping through a number of "hoops" to really get it back."
"The network configuration part of HPE OneView needs improvement. The solution has way too many features, and there's a need for proper configuration indicators to be put in place."
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 31st in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 20 reviews while HPE OneView is ranked 17th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 80 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while HPE OneView is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS Manager writes "Stable and resilient, but slightly more complicated to deploy". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE OneView writes "Provides firmware compliance and the ability to connect to iPO". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, Zabbix, Datadog and PRTG Network Monitor, whereas HPE OneView is most compared with Dell CloudIQ, Cisco Intersight, Zabbix, Lenovo XClarity Orchestrator and Nagios XI. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. HPE OneView report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
We monitor all IT Infrastructure Monitoring 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.