We performed a comparison between Cisco UCS Manager and HPE OneView 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.
"The hardware is very powerful and it is a stable solution."
"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."
"From a usability and functionality perspective, Cisco UCS Manager is very good."
"I can deploy something in my 50-odd servers all in one go, in parallel, whereas if I was to do that individually, it could be a nightmare."
"The reporting functionality will give you any report you want."
"Ease of management is certainly the most valuable feature in this product."
"We can configure the Cisco UCS Manager, the profiles and interactions with the resource we manage."
"The solution is highly scalable, mainly because of the templates that make it easy for you to actually edit on the system."
"It is very stable. We have had no downtime nor issues in approximately a year. "
"If you have a lot of devices, like we do, then you have to have one single pane of view, otherwise we lose too much time. So, we needed this type of solution."
"Easy to add servers and get them monitored and manageable."
"The solution's technical support was great...The initial setup of HPE OneView was easy."
"Firmware compliance is one of the most valuable features."
"It monitors all our servers, and if there is any problem it straight away sends us an alert. If It's a faulty component, we can see it from there. It sends an alert."
"The easy user interface was what I found most valuable in HPE OneView. For example, if I wanted to know the infrastructure status or I needed to send in any change commands, HPE OneView had simple buttons."
"The hypervisor and cluster profiles make it easy to integrate with VMware."
"The pricing can be better."
"Upgrading the firmware is a difficult procedure."
"I found it a bit of a challenge to get training on UCSM. I've been trying to get that for some time now. I feel like I have to figure it out a lot of things myself. For years I've to log calls with support whenever I've got challenges that I cannot resolve. If I had some training or more manuals, I'd be better able to handle more things on my own."
"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."
"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."
"Getting a CLI report on routers, switches, or any other CLI configuration device is difficult."
"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."
"I want to be able to schedule multiple sequential updates in one go."
"There was a feature called HPE cloud manager, but now it is owned by Micro Focus. HPE should make a cloud optimizer again."
"The speed and performance of the solution are areas where the product lacks and needs improvement."
"Integration could be improved. Sometimes OneView doesn't identify physical hardware."
"We ran into a couple of issues here and there with the baselines for the firmware and not having enough space on the appliance itself to be able to have more than two baselines."
"The solution could add storage, integration services, and end-to-end support for Cisco switches or other competitor products."
"HPE OneView should be able to cover more device models apart from ProLiant and Synergy."
"We've had a few issues. We just upgraded to the 3.9.0 version. We think that now that we are on that version, hopefully a lot of those things are going to go away for us."
"The main problem that we run into, as far as stability goes, is when something loses its profile. Sometimes it requires jumping through a number of "hoops" to really get it back."
Cisco UCS Manager is ranked 29th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 21 reviews while HPE OneView is ranked 17th in IT Infrastructure Monitoring with 80 reviews. Cisco UCS Manager is rated 8.0, while HPE OneView is rated 8.0. 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 HPE OneView writes "Provides firmware compliance and the ability to connect to iPO". Cisco UCS Manager is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Nutanix Prism, Zabbix, Datadog and Moogsoft, whereas HPE OneView is most compared with Cisco Intersight, Dell CloudIQ, Zabbix, Lenovo XClarity Orchestrator and Splunk Enterprise Security. See our Cisco UCS Manager vs. HPE OneView report.
See our list of best IT Infrastructure Monitoring vendors.
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.
