We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS B-Series and HPE Synergy based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Blade Servers solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."From a return on investment perspective, Cisco UCS B-Series is worth the money."
"The ratio in terms of the number of units and the number of servers that we can get each chassis is quite good."
"The scalability is good because it comes with Fabric Interconnects, and you can directly add more blades as you go. Therefore, scalability is not a problem."
"The Dual Fabric design allows for online/in-service upgrades during production with no impact."
"I like that it's very manageable very easy to use and configure. I am not an expert, but the graphic user interface is quite simple very easy to use. It's a complete solution."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to replace a server with another one, simply by applying the profile"
"The architecture of this solution is very valuable; it has five traffic interconnects, and uses a network highway so bandwidth is never an issue."
"The GUI makes is simple to use and deploy."
"The composable infrastructure allows us to build our own server profiles, then build up the infrastructure that we need from compute modules."
"Give us the ability to seamlessly migrate from one operating environment to another within minutes, which is invaluable."
"There is no problem with the scalability."
"It makes life easier for us when we are deploying new technology, as we have the building blocks already in place."
"With OneView, we can take care of all our servers in one dashboard."
"Support is very helpful."
"The most valuable features are the evolution of our existing HPE portfolio, the integration with our existing tool sets, and the enhanced capabilities that OneView bring."
"The temporal value of it. If I only need a particular amount of compute for a specific period of time during business hours, then at night, I'm running a bunch of batch jobs, or doing something else, that ability to swap a profile, swap templates, and have compute assigned to something else, saves significant amount of money. As long as you are tying it into the automation and orchestration layers, it becomes much easier to do."
"Integration with storage could be improved."
"The main issue with this solution is that it is quite vendor-restricted, meaning that when we use third party software, we cannot use all of the available configuration tools or pre-validated design features."
"This model does not support virtualization of the switch."
"The solution is expensive."
"The initial setup process is complex."
"Next generation support for VMware needs to be introduced as it does not support eighth-generation VMware."
"The configuration is a bit complex, as it requires very high technical expertise to apply it."
"It needs a better UI. Cisco makes a great product, but doesn't know how to make a UI."
"The technical support was about the only negative experience that I had. It was a mixed bag when we were first standing it up. We had some requirements from our information security department, and technical support wasn't able to give me immediate answers. They had to engage engineering, which they did, then they got me the answers. However, it took a week of back and forth conversations and phone calls to get it all worked out."
"The initial setup was complex. We had a couple of bright engineers working on it, and they figured out a lot of things that they don't know... The problem was that they couldn't find documentation easily, to walk them through setup when they just didn't know the platform."
"The possibility of using storage directly in the frame in order to have bigger storage directly there, and not having an attached storage like SAN or NAS. That would be helpful."
"The performance could be better. The converged network cards initially didn't work. However, later on in the newer version, they came up with 50 GB network cards to replace the 20 GB ones, and it's perfectly fine now. At times, it could also be more stable."
"Instead of having Synergy vertical, make it horizontal. It is easier to stick in when it is vertical."
"The only issue that we had was our rack was too small. The product is heavy, so it took a lot to get it in there."
"This solution could be improved by increasing the speed on the conversion adapters. It should be 100 gigs."
"Changes to the solution are quite complex."
Cisco UCS B-Series is ranked 3rd in Blade Servers with 64 reviews while HPE Synergy is ranked 1st in Blade Servers with 85 reviews. Cisco UCS B-Series is rated 8.6, while HPE Synergy is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Cisco UCS B-Series writes "Robust hardware and efficient management of hardware, creating group policies, such as scrub policies and maintenance policies". On the other hand, the top reviewer of HPE Synergy writes "Local hard drives are not needed for the i3S module that boots to any operating system". Cisco UCS B-Series is most compared with Dell PowerEdge M, HPE BladeSystem, Super Micro SuperBlade, Pure Storage FlashBlade and Lenovo Flex System, whereas HPE Synergy is most compared with HPE BladeSystem, Dell PowerEdge M, HPE Apollo, HPE ProLiant DL Servers and HPE Superdome X. See our Cisco UCS B-Series vs. HPE Synergy report.
See our list of best Blade Servers vendors.
We monitor all Blade Servers 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.