We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and Nutanix Prism 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 quickly manage the provisioned servers."
"Cisco UCS Manager is overall a good package because it gives a GUI interface and a CLI."
"Ease of management is certainly the most valuable feature in this product."
"The flexibility and the ease in which the features can be expanded are the solution's most valuable aspects."
"What I like most about Cisco UCS Manager is the ease of administration. It also allows the central management of maintenance, installation, and configuration activities."
"The management is one of the most valuable features of this solution."
"The most valuable features are flexibility and management."
"Cisco UCS has different layers of security, and you can do multiple installations of your LIAMs on top of the server and Blade. You can install VMware, Windows Server, Hyper-V, etc."
"One valuable aspect of Nutanix Prism is how easy it is to set up. The setup process is useful to us because all we need to do is to set some variables and go with the recommended settings."
"I am very satisfied with the technical support."
"Nutanix has one of the greatest support organizations that I've ever had to use. They're polite, you get someone on the phone fast, and they always find a solution for you."
"Nutanix Prism's dashboard is very simple, and you don't need much knowledge to use it."
"Prism's best features include the single point of failure (SPOF) and ease of implementation."
"The most valuable feature of Nutanix Prism is the single location management. You can manage everything from one location HTML5 web interface which is highly intuitive. The solution is easy to use, you do not need to be an expert in storage."
"I like the general usability for general configuration. It is sufficient for everyday operations."
"The GUI and the dashboard are impressive. I like that you can modify the GUI and the dashboard as per your requirements."
"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."
"There is room for improvement in the software part of Cisco UCS Manager. It should be more user-friendly, especially when creating policies."
"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 installation and upgrade sytems need to be improved."
"Getting a CLI report on routers, switches, or any other CLI configuration device is difficult."
"Its user interface can be improved. It can be more user-friendly."
"The automation within the solution needs to be simplified."
"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."
"There are a few areas related to visibility on the dashboard that can be improved. It's good, but the visibility can be improved in terms of single locations."
"The interface is good, but it needs improvements. There are a lot of functions that are only available in the CLI. In addition, some of the hardware components could be improved. We already had some trouble with disks."
"There can be some constraints on how it scales, making granular scaling difficult with the product."
"When we get a request from a user for a file-level recovery, there are self-recovery options, but they only work if the replication is available to that cluster locally... In VMware, we could restore a VM and attach the hard drive to any other server and copy the file easily. But that kind of facility is not available in AHV."
"It doesn't integrate very well with any backup solution."
"The automation needs to be improved, as there are several challenges."
"There are some things that you can only do via the command line. Over the years that I've been using Nutanix, they've slowly integrated those into Prism, but they're still trying to catch up with a solution that has been around longer, like VMware."
"I think that the Nutanix Prism Pro the terms it uses, it's not very user-friendly."
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews while Nutanix Prism is ranked 4th in Virtualization Management Tools with 57 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while Nutanix Prism is rated 8.8. 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 Nutanix Prism writes "Having a centralized platform for infrastructure information has helped us with capacity planning". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, HPE OneView, Zabbix, Datadog and Moogsoft, whereas Nutanix Prism is most compared with VMware Aria Operations, Zabbix, Nutanix Cloud Manager (NCM), HPE OneView and Veeam ONE. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. Nutanix Prism 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.
