We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and Pulseway 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."The management is one of the most valuable features of this solution."
"Cisco UCS Manager is overall a good package because it gives a GUI interface and a CLI."
"It is more robust than other solutions. So, the stability is good."
"Cisco Infrastructure is one of the top vendors and no one can beat them in terms of switching and routing."
"The solution is highly scalable, mainly because of the templates that make it easy for you to actually edit on the system."
"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."
"The hardware is very powerful and it is a stable solution."
"Ease of management is certainly the most valuable feature in this product."
"The setup is simple."
"The solution has great workflow and server modules."
"It has been very helpful to get notifications about various issues with my servers and network to help me take action to resolve problems before they become major issues."
"It gives you remote control and has a mobile app."
"We like the patching of the window updates in the client's systems. You can automatically do updates with a single click."
"I would like to see Cisco UCS optionally work as a hyper-converged system because right now, it only operates as a converged system."
"Getting a CLI report on routers, switches, or any other CLI configuration device is difficult."
"Cisco UCS Manager should have a simplified deployment in the sense of not having multiple machines, demilitarized zones, and on-premise options."
"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."
"Cisco UCS is expensive compared to others. The Cisco UCS Chassis is more expensive than a standalone server, but some companies require standalone servers because of their production load and affordability. You need to pay more if you require more features on the Blade or if you need more ports on the switch."
"The installation and upgrade sytems need to be improved."
"Cisco UCS Manager is not a scalable solution because once you have 160 blades, it cannot be expanded more."
"The solution does not allow you to make a script for just one customer."
"They have good technical support but it's not excellent."
"GUI needs to be improved and the solution lacks a process for monitoring VOIP calls."
"It would be nice if it also had a desktop application, similar to the phone app, which would allow me to monitor and control computers from my desktop."
"There are some bugs or glitches."
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews while Pulseway is ranked 13th in Remote Monitoring and Management (RMM) with 6 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while Pulseway is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS Manager writes "Used to manage servers, monitor or manage firmware upgrades, and push policies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Pulseway writes "A solution with a great monitoring system and ability to control access remotely". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, HPE OneView, Zabbix and Datadog, whereas Pulseway is most compared with Zabbix, Kaseya VSA, Microsoft Configuration Manager and PRTG Network Monitor. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. Pulseway report.
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.