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

FlexPod XCS vs IBM VersaStack comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 2, 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

FlexPod XCS
Ranking in Converged Infrastructure
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
295
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM VersaStack
Ranking in Converged Infrastructure
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Converged Infrastructure category, the mindshare of FlexPod XCS is 9.3%, up from 9.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM VersaStack is 1.3%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Converged Infrastructure
 

Featured Reviews

Chris Haight - PeerSpot reviewer
Integrates everything so you are using fewer tools
The traditional UCS Blades do not take much storage internally. You would be challenged to create an HCI (Hype converged Infrastructure) solution on FlexPod / UCS or any other solution that pools internal storage. Now, with UCS X-Series, you can carve off an HCI solution, software defined pooled solution if you want. This was one area of improvement that I wanted to see and can now realize with the refresh of the Cisco UCS infrastructure. With modern modular infrastructure, RESTful API has been added, there are more integrations, ServiceNow and vCenter along with tighter plug-ins. There is cross-user interface launching, for example with Windows Admin Center. The solutions are using Ansible and Terraform for deploying infrastructure as code. All the improvements that I wanted from the last gen are here or coming. With modern workloads and GPU use on the rise, adding GPUs to modern modular infrastructure will have some pros and cons. Typically, you can add one or two GPU's to a blade with no or little trade off. With the UCS X-Series, if you are doing a GPU farm, then you may have to sacrifice compute blades in the front slots to put in a GPU tray / module. A chassis holds eight compute blades, but if you are adding a ton of GPUs, a single GPU tray or more will reduce your blade count by as many GPU trays you add. This is not just a Cisco UCS X-Series problem. It is an industry problem with modular infrastructure and one that I would like to see get solved! I am looking into one such solution, VMware BITFUSION where you can send CUDA requests over the network to a BITFUSION server with the results sent back to the requestor, early stages here and only scratched the surface thus far. With Cisco UCS X-Series, I would like to see the fabric interconnects built into the chassis instead of being external. With the fabric interconnects, the real footprint of UCS X-Series is 9U, where some of the competing solutions are 7U and have collapsed the network fabric into the chassis. This is another thing that I would like to see from Cisco, though, not really on the NetApp side of the fence, NetApp is solid storage.
reviewer2058714 - PeerSpot reviewer
A very high IOPS that gives more I/O transactions per second
Scalability used to be an issue so at that time it was rated an eight out of ten. We have become OPEX-based and rent storage from them. Physical storage is about 200% of our requirements but we only pay for what we use. This resolved all of our scalability issues. When we reach a certain threshold like 100%, OPEX calls us and asks if we want to add more storage. Our total capacity right now is 300 terabytes but we are only using around 200 terabytes. We bought the storage two years ago and our projections are on par. We don't need more capacity now but have plans to increase in another two years. With our OPEX storage, scalability is rated a nine 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

"It is pretty flexible. We are able to deploy faster."
"The assurance and the peace of mind that we get from knowing if we had an issue with either the NetApp equipment, Cisco equipment, or our VMware enviroment, we can call one number for support, then everyone works together and nobody is pointing fingers all over the place."
"It is innovative when it comes to compute, storage, and networking, because there are a lot of the storage efficiencies which allow us to keep a smaller footprint."
"We have absolutely been able to save space."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the stability."
"It simplifies the management of our entire system."
"It reduced the total cost of ownership."
"It's all converged into one consolidated platform, which works well together."
"The solution has high IOPS and the I/O is important because it gives us more transactions per second."
"Replication and DR implementation became faster."
"The combination of Cisco's architecture and IBM's flash technology. Cisco provides FI technology which provides one simple architecture. IBM's flash technology is fast."
 

Cons

"Make it easier to refresh hardware. We got to the point where we couldn't fix vulnerabilities without refreshing the hardware, then that became a little too expensive for us to do."
"The initial setup was complex. UCS is not the easiest thing to configure from the ground up. The networking pieces can get confusing, especially when you are talking about virtual segmentation. It is not as easy as other things now on the market, such as hyperconverged."
"Our environment does not always require this solution, so we are not reaping the optimal ROI."
"The biggest thing that I would like to see is more cost-effective FlexPod solutions."
"I had one problem at the site where I had an aggregate that would not shrink after I had deleted some stuff. It took a few tries to get the right guy on the call. We do have a NetApp SAM with our company, and it really took getting to him to get the solution fixed."
"There have been issues upgrading the firmware."
"Installation with FlexPod is a bit complex, but it can be upgraded easily. I think Flexpod is phasing out, but it is still the right solution."
"On the NetApp side, there are definitely things to improve in terms of software updates."
"Raw data mapping for storage should be a given option."
"The solution should improve deduplication to get a lot of savings."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing and licensing are quite expensive. However, compared to other solutions, it is okay."
"FlexPod has saved data center costs, due to the fact that we reduced our footprint for storage in a big way. We went from three complete racks down to a 2U storage array for more than 300 terabytes of storage."
"As a startup, for the amount of budget we have and the amount we spend, we are getting what we expected."
"It is cost-effective."
"It has saved us hundreds of man-hours by using this converged infrastructure."
"We purchased from CDW•G. They are great partners on the government side."
"We pay approximately $1,400 USD in total for between five-thousand and ten-thousand ports."
"We have reduced our manpower with the solution."
"The solution is enterprise level so it is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Converged Infrastructure solutions are best for your needs.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user244362 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 30, 2015
Nutanix vs. VMware EVO:RAIL vs. FlexPod
Originally posted at www.storagegaga.com/dont-get-too-drunk-on-hyper-converged/ I hate the fact that I am bursting the big bubble brewing about Hyper Convergence (HC). I urge all to look past the hot air and hype frenzy that are going on, because in the end, the HC platforms have to be aligned…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Computer Software Company
12%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Educational Organization
10%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about FlexPod?
The system is designed for easy scaling. Because we define everything clearly. So when we plug the system in, we apply the profile, and it scales easily.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FlexPod?
The pricing is not cheaper, but stability is more important for us now. We focus on business gains, not static numbers. Following XCS rules ensures a stable environment, which is crucial. For me, C...
What needs improvement with FlexPod?
FlexPod should focus more on automation. Integrating an automation tool with FlexPod would enable customers to leverage automation capabilities. More automation would be helpful. Currently, we cont...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

University of Sao Paulo, WD-40, The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group
Newhall Hospital, Medicat, JJ Haines, Sigmax
Find out what your peers are saying about FlexPod XCS vs. IBM VersaStack and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
849,686 professionals have used our research since 2012.