Cisco UCS B-Series vs HPE BladeSystem comparison

"Since its UCS release in 2009, Cisco has extended the core functionality with Central, a tool for managing multiple domains"

"The most valuable feature is the service profile."

"The initial setup is pretty simple and straightforward."

"The solution's most valuable feature is KVM Launch Manager."

"The feature that I found the most value is the abstract and stateless capacities."

"Overall service and support from Cisco is very good."

"The most valuable feature is definitely the service profile."

"The scalability and easy management of the lifecycle, upgrades, and hardware failures are valuable."

"It is a stable, dependable solution."

"The most valuable feature of this solution is its high availability."

"I have noticed that the solution does provide a very good ROI for companies."

"The most valuable feature of the HPE BladeSystem is the ease of management."

"I really appreciate the integrated Onboard Administrator, the iLO (Integrated Lights-Out) modular network, and the SAN Switches."

"The solution has high performance."

"Uptime and service are valuable for us. When we have an issue, uptime and being able to get an emergency replacement or actual service is the most important thing for us."

"It's very scalable."

"The initial setup is not easy."

"It needs a better UI. Cisco makes a great product, but doesn't know how to make a UI."

"It is more expensive than the competitors."

"Cisco UCS B-Series competitors have similar features as they do, Cisco needs to make some changes to make their offering better."

"This model does not support virtualization of the switch."

"The integration is an area where Cisco UCS B-Series needs to provide users with more details."

"The initial setup and service profile deployment can be tricky and should be improved for ease of use."

"USC Central seems a bit confusing for technicians."

"Some part of virtual connections needs improvement."

"HPE has a replacement system called Synergy, though it’s a more high-end system than the old C7000."

"The only side that must be improved is the active-passive interconnect module architecture."

"The management side of this solution could be improved."

"We would like to see OneView software features as an additional feature."

"The other similar solutions used different CLI commands than HPE BladeSystem. The HPE BladeSystem CLI commands should be the same as the other companies which would make it easier to manage. It would be better for the system administrators to manage HPE BladeSystem and other systems together. I wanted to configure this service with the CLI but the commands are different than the other solutions making it a bit more difficult."

"Currently, in the case of a disk failure there is a need to remove the whole bay and as a result, to disconnect all the other disks."

"If you compare it with Lenovo systems, the pricing is too high."

"The type of service level purchase will determine the level of support response that you receive from Cisco."

"The cost of the Cisco UCS B-Series is comparable to HP solutions but higher than Dell solutions."

"The price of this solution is a little bit higher, but given that this system is Cisco, it feels more secure and dependable."

"Compared to the more in-demand hyper-converged environments such as Nutanix or DVX rail, Cisco UCS B-Series is even more costly due to the expensive fabric interconnects."

"UCS is expensive, and we will be migrating to the cheaper HP servers."

"Considering our market, I rate the pricing of Cisco UCS B-Series as a six."

"The price of this solution compared to others is fair."

"The cost of the blade servers is okay, but the cost of Fabric Interconnects ends up increasing the overall costs. For example, suppose it costs 3,500 USD per blade server. When you include the Fabric Interconnects, you could pay up to 30,000 USD. Therefore, compared to the cost of servers from Lenovo, Huawei, Dell, or HP, the cost of Cisco servers can be high. However, Cisco gives good discounts (about 90% to 94%) to partners and to customers who are already using Cisco servers. New Cisco customers do not get the level of discount that an existing customer does. Because you can get discounts with Cisco, I would give pricing a rating of four out of five."

"When you purchase HPE BladeSystem you have to pay for the support service. The first three years are covered under the warranty, and for any further support, you have to pay annually. When comparing the cost of HPE BladeSystem to other vendors, the fees are less expensive."

"I need to pay for the license, and it is expensive. We make yearly payments."

"With regards to the prices, they need to adapt to the current needs of the country."

"Add OneView and ILO advanced to the base product. Don’t adjust the price, but just include them."

"it would make everyone happy if the solution were less expensive."

"Its pricing was good. We selected this solution because it was within our budget. We paid just once when we bought it. We never bought any license."

"Regarding the cost, HPE BladeSystem is not cheap. The solution and its support are costly, and there are challenges with renewal and pricing, especially in Nigeria, due to the dollar rate and FX issues. However, it is reliable. I don't have specific figures for licensing costs, as the procurement and finance departments handle them."

"We have an annual license."