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 April 2025, in the Converged Infrastructure category, the mindshare of FlexPod XCS is 9.4%, down from 9.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM VersaStack is 1.2%, 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

"FlexPod is easy to setup, maintain and has great stability."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is the stability."
"It makes us more lateral and faster to production."
"FlexPods allow us to go through and roll out compute, having a converged infrastructure with the same level of simplicity that you would expect of a hyper-converged."
"The solution has granular scalability."
"The solution’s unified support for the entire stack is critically important because we cannot afford downtime."
"It is pretty flexible. We are able to deploy faster."
"It's a common platform, which provides for ease of use between all of the blade servers. It uses all the same tech, moving service profiles seamlessly across from one blade to the next. There is also combined support."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"FlexPod can improve with a single control management interface to manage all aspects and components of the solution."
"This solution is very hard to maintain and keep up."
"They need to improve the user interface to make it easier to work in this environment. The older version is poor."
"Updates are not frequent enough."
"Because when you try to do automation, there are many bits and pieces tied together. Sometimes, automation gets a little tricky for provisioning."
"The ability to manage the templates across sites. We would like to easily take out the configuration of one FlexPod and copy it over, just making minor changes. There is a way to do it, but it's clumsy."
"Not a perfect ten because it could use better integration on the network side between UCS and the switching layer. The fact that LACP is not supported on UCS blades isn't so great. It would be nice if it was."
"I would like them to integrate the NVIDIA GRID into the system, so we could easily deploy certain solutions with the FlexPod."
"The solution should improve deduplication to get a lot of savings."
"Raw data mapping for storage should be a given option."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The total cost of ownership with this solution is good."
"The FlexPod licensing can adjust to your purse, i.e. there are different levels available for businesses of all sizes."
"We fear high availability so we can't buy from different providers."
"We have saved time and money for new service deployments."
"We have seen a five to ten percent savings on new service deployments."
"We have saved time with Snapshots, SnapMirrors, and backup and DR capabilities versus other platforms that we have looked at in the past."
"Sometimes you may end up spending a little more to get it in the first place, but you gain it back in terms of infrastructure upgrade costs and troubleshooting costs. The solution also lasts a surprisingly long time."
"We have saved money using FlexPod. We have saved time and money for new service deployments."
"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.
847,772 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%
Financial Services Firm
12%
Computer Software Company
11%
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.
847,772 professionals have used our research since 2012.