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 March 2025, in the Converged Infrastructure category, the mindshare of FlexPod XCS is 8.7%, down from 10.1% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM VersaStack is 1.2%, down from 2.6% 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

"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 most valuable feature is the one support. Anytime that a customer buys a solution for a server, storage, or network, once they have trouble in their environment, everyone wants to find out who was wrong. With FlexPod, everyone is wrong and there is unified support. The best way to solve the problem is have it be everyone's problem, not just one person's problem. For FlexPod, you can call NetApp or Cisco, and I think it's the best way to solve the problem that the customer has."
"The hardware has been rock solid so far. It has gone up easy. It runs well. We have not had issues with it."
"The most valuable is the one support. I have a 1-800 number. I call one number rather than figuring out whether it's a network, compute, or storage issue. It is beautiful and works out nicely."
"For FlexPod, it is always trustworthy. I had previously never seen flex machines from other brands or associated with other products. FlexPod is a large investment and they are good enough to support it."
"This sounds dumb, but it just works. I don't want to have to deal with support, and I don't need to because, again, it has just worked."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to integrate different products into one validated design. That allows customers to understand and get the value out of the hardware, as it was designed."
"The product is robust, stable, and has flexibility."
"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."
"The solution has high IOPS and the I/O is important because it gives us more transactions per second."
 

Cons

"On the NetApp side, there are definitely things to improve in terms of software updates."
"I would like to see them reduce the complexity, that would be my number one request because. Right now, doing simple things is pretty complex. You have so many options. It might be better if it were more wizard-driven, as opposed to going through five hundred dials. It's not very easy or intuitive."
"Since 2018 or 2019, maybe due to COVID and the chipsets, my DIMMs are dying left and right."
"The upgrade process needs to be improved and it would be nice to manage everything from a single pane of glass."
"There are certain things that are just hard to do on a physical infrastructure, like for instance you need to make petabytes of data available at high speed."
"We dislike going online with the robot stuff. Many times, it has delayed our reaching out to a real support engineer."
"This solution is very hard to maintain and keep up."
"It takes a very sophisticated group of people to run and maintain NetApp and Cisco products."
"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

"We have saved time and money for new service deployments. Without FlexPod, it probably takes about ten hours. With FlexPod, within two hours, we are up and running. So, we have seen about an 80 percent time decrease."
"The product's pricing is high and I would rate it a nine out of ten."
"We have saved 50 percent on new service deployments."
"It is cheaper than other products. For example, Dell EMC VxBlock is more expensive."
"We have absolutely seen ROI. We have saved between two to four million dollars on travel alone over the past 24 months."
"If your company really needs to be up 100% of the time, and you need to do a private data center, I don't know if I could realistically actually recommend another blueprint."
"The NetApp portion was a $5 million investment five years ago. That has served the customer well over five and a half years."
"We have seen an 80 percent improvement in application performance."
"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.
842,296 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
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: March 2025.
842,296 professionals have used our research since 2012.