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

FlexPod XCS vs IBM VersaStack comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

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
5th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.6
Number of Reviews
295
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM VersaStack
Ranking in Converged Infrastructure
9th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2025, in the Converged Infrastructure category, the mindshare of FlexPod XCS is 8.7%, down from 10.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM VersaStack is 0.9%, down from 2.5% 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 has simplified our support."
"If the network or site is down, you just need to go to a single vendor. You don't have to open up multiple cases with each vendor to get things done. That is one of the financial benefits of this solution."
"This solution has given us a great deal of on-site storage that we didn't have before."
"Not a perfect ten because it could use better integration on the network side between UCS and the switching layerKnowing that everything works, having a single place to be able to find out compatibility and things like that are the biggest benefits of this solution. The fact that LACP is not supported on UCS blades isn't so great. It would be nice if it was."
"It is a complete solution."
"The vendor delivers a fully-configured prebuilt system with a certain baseline on it."
"The solution has granular scalability."
"You can just take out blades and replace them, and you're back up and running in no time."
"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."
"Replication and DR implementation became faster."
"The solution has high IOPS and the I/O is important because it gives us more transactions per second."
 

Cons

"This is an expensive solution."
"The interface is a little convoluted."
"Parts of the initial setup were complex, especially on the networking side."
"We would like more integration with some other HCI solutions so we can take advantage of other opportunities."
"There is a history of issues with hardware availability. For example, we'll buy an array or a filer with a particular configuration and particular size of drive, sizing it appropriately. Then, as we grow, they're like, "Oh, you can always get more." Then when you go to get more, that model or type of disk is no longer available. It becomes this big process to try to figure out what we need to get, how it'll work, and how that'll integrate into the system. That could be simpler. They could do a bit more to guarantee the availability of parts. Obviously, not being the largest storage vendor, I know they can't sometimes control what the hardware vendors do. However, a bit more transparency and communication about this would be helpful."
"There is a lot of documentation that has to be reviewed before you go through an upgrade. It is not as straightforward as some other solutions."
"The upgrade process needs to be improved and it would be nice to manage everything from a single pane of glass."
"For the next release, because I know that we are using Pure Storage, what I want to see is the GUI interfaces on this UCS monitor."
"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 a lease for approximately $10,000 USD per month."
"We have saved time, money, space, and power consumption on new service deployments. We have a data center in Toronto which had ten racks on one of the new servers. This was all reduced to two racks with six chassis, which is amazing."
"As a whole, it is inexpensive, and it uses the least amount of parts."
"Our licensing costs are about $50,000 per year."
"It is not going to save you money, but that is not the point. The opportunity to stay competitive in the marketplace is not a cost."
"The product is kind of expensive even from an entry-level standpoint. I would say FlexPod would be the way to go if you are a larger business or one with large data volume."
"We immediately saw a return on investment due to the fact that replacing our legacy storage arrays with the new AFFs reduced the footprint and maintenance costs. Overall, we saw an almost immediate ROI."
"The NetApp portion was a $5 million investment five years ago. That has served the customer well over five and a half years."
"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.
831,265 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
19%
Computer Software Company
13%
Financial Services Firm
10%
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...
What do you like most about IBM VersaStack?
The solution has high IOPS and the I/O is important because it gives us more transactions per second.
What needs improvement with IBM VersaStack?
The solution should improve deduplication to get a lot of savings. To upgrade memory, you have to go through your license and that process is difficult. The solution should include IBM Spectrum Vir...
What is your primary use case for IBM VersaStack?
Our company uses the solution as a financial system for core banking. We use the Flash 7200 which is the solution's newest version and different from the V9.
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Learn More

Video not 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: January 2025.
831,265 professionals have used our research since 2012.