HPE BladeSystem provides centralized management and modular infrastructure, offering flexibility, efficiency, and high performance. Its compact and scalable design is suitable for seamless integration, enhancing connectivity while reducing downtime.
| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| HPE BladeSystem | 8.4% |
| HPE Synergy | 9.2% |
| Dell PowerEdge MX- Series | 9.1% |
| Other | 73.3% |
| Type | Title | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category | Blade Servers | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Product | Reviews, tips, and advice from real users | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | HPE BladeSystem vs Dell PowerEdge MX- Series | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | HPE BladeSystem vs Dell PowerEdge R-Series | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Comparison | HPE BladeSystem vs HPE Synergy | Jun 23, 2026 | Download |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dell PowerEdge R-Series | 4.5 | 5.1% | 99% | 307 interviewsAdd to research |
| HPE Synergy | 4.2 | 9.2% | 91% | 91 interviewsAdd to research |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 19 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 29 |
| Large Enterprise | 76 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 245 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 93 |
| Large Enterprise | 159 |
HPE BladeSystem is valued for its ability to consolidate infrastructure with reliable and scalable solutions, catering to needs across industries like telecommunications, finance, and education. Its intuitive management and robust connectivity deliver efficient management and power savings. However, improvements are needed in license registration, driver access, KVM integration, and cost effectiveness compared to competitors. Installation and software support require attention, and users seek better cloud integration.
What are HPE BladeSystem's key features?HPE BladeSystem sees implementation in sectors like finance and telecommunications, being crucial for virtualization and enterprise applications involving VMware or Hyper-V. It supports operations such as high-availability clustering and data management, effectively maintaining legacy systems and enhancing server management with integrated tools.
HPE BladeSystem was previously known as HP ProLiant BL Series Servers, HP ProLiant BladeSystem.
EMIS Health
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Technology Management Consultant at National Institute for Smart Government - NISG | 4.0 | I find the HPE BladeSystem to be reliable and cost-effective, with excellent integration of storage and networking. However, customization features need improvement, as current modifications require contacting HP support, which is not user-friendly. |
| CTO at Miraj | 4.0 | I've used HPE BladeSystem for over ten years, valuing its modular architecture and scalability, though training and manageability need improvement, especially compared to VMware. Reliability enhancements and easier hybrid integration are also needed for better user experience. |
| Asst. Manager at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees | 4.5 | We use the HP BladeSystem for our internal applications and appreciate its ease of use and reliability, rarely needing support. There's a notable price gap with competitors like Cisco UCS, and while I'm always open to lower prices, I'm satisfied overall. |
| Specialist Datacenter and Server at IHS Towers | 4.0 | We use HPE BladeSystem for high availability in our telecom company's data center, leveraging its high computing capabilities. While its performance and OneView management are valuable, improvements in stability and diagnostic clarity would enhance our experience. |
| Head of Sales at Omgea Exim Ltd | 4.0 | As a reseller and consultant for HPE BladeSystem, we find its robustness, connectivity, and low latency valuable across industries. While customers enjoy reduced operational costs, an alternative to VMware would enhance appeal. We also consider brands like Dell and Cisco. |
| Manager of Capacity and Control Management at a insurance company with 10,001+ employees | 4.5 | I find HP Blades (Gen 9/10) stable, scalable, and easy to set up for VMware/Citrix, with minimal issues. However, console management is tedious, parts replacement support is slower now, and the price is high. I recommend moving to Synergy. |
| Network and Telecommunication Section Manager at a consumer goods company with 501-1,000 employees | 4.5 | We use HPE BladeSystem for our ERP and business applications on VMware, enjoying ten years of stability without hardware failures. However, recent HPE support has been lacking, prompting us to consider third-party services after this year. |
| Senior IT Operations Specialist at Denel | 5.0 | I used HPE BladeSystem for virtualization with Microsoft, Unix, and Linux, appreciating its cluster capabilities and easy configuration. However, our outdated system needs improvements in stability, support, and pricing. I found HPE easier to use than Dell. |
| Server & Cloud Architect at Icare | 5.0 | We use HPE BladeSystem for developing applications and project data management. Its valuable features include server and IoT port monitoring using AI. Improvement is needed in the availability of learning materials for better understanding of GreenLake functionality. |
| IT Service Manager at Kuveyt Turk Participation Bank | 4.0 | I use HPE BladeSystem to virtualize databases and servers, benefiting from reduced cabling and data center space. However, there's room for price improvement. Previously, I used the base system of HPE BladeSystem 1C7. |
The typical use case for HPE BladeSystem is a reliable one. The monitoring and support HP provides is far better compared to other systems, and if we are using HP servers along with HP tools such as HP Service Manager and HP OpenView for integrating server management and automating incident management systems, it is quite helpful and the best in the market currently.
We currently manage, test, and implement HPE solutions as a customer and end user.
The best features of HPE BladeSystem include its reliability, which is something we are currently using.
The cost is quite reasonable compared to other competitors.
The integration of storage and networking components within the HPE BladeSystem is quite beneficial as it is easily interoperable if we are using the same system for monitoring with the same software, which eliminates interoperability issues. We also use Nutanix and VMware, and when we have separate systems for them, it creates configuration changes and issues that are not present when using a single system.
Improving HPE BladeSystem could involve enhancing the customization features which are currently less robust than other tools in the market that offer drag and drop modules.
In our case, we have some features in place, but to do any customization, we need to contact HP technical support, and the process is not user-friendly.
With specifically HPE BladeSystem, I have around 8 years of experience. Since I am working in a data center, I also work on HP, IBM, and Dell servers, so I have exposure with Nagios, Jira, HP Service Manager, HP OpenView, ServiceNow, and Salesforce.
With around 19 years of exposure in working with various servers, including HPE, I encounter challenges in identifying reasonable prices during the setup cost and licensing process, especially for scalability when we need to contact different vendors for quotes to find competitive offers.
I would rate technical support from HPE as an eight on a scale from one to ten.
Positive
The initial setup of HPE BladeSystem can vary. If you have a big data center with multiple terabytes of space, it could be complex, but for single office usage with limited storage, other more cost-effective solutions may suffice.
We have two HP people who are looking after the technical parts related to HP Blade servers.
With around 19 years of exposure in working with various servers, including HPE, I encounter challenges in identifying reasonable prices during the setup cost and licensing process, especially for scalability when we need to contact different vendors for quotes to find competitive offers.
I researched on peerspot.com about IT solutions, specifically about HPE BladeSystem and HPE Synergy, because we are already using HP servers in our state data center.
In HP Cloud System, we are using a converged infrastructure to connect LAN and SAN connectivity across the network.
Regarding Virtual Connect technology, there is a noticeable impact on network management.
For day-to-day operations, we use various applications such as Zoom and Microsoft Teams to connect virtually.
Using HPE BladeSystem Virtual Connect technology in HP Cloud System, we achieve efficient network management with well-defined LAN and SAN connectivity.
We already have a defined modular architecture in place designed by the HP team for our data center.
My company name is National Institute for Smart Government, also called NISG, under the National e-Governance Division. My title is Technology Management Consultant.
I would rate HPE BladeSystem as an eight out of ten.
I usually recommend and implement HPE BladeSystem for centralized data centers and private data centers. I deal mostly with switching and the server part of HP products. I switched to HP and am currently working in a company that works for HP as a system integrator. I deploy HP products as part of my role. I would recommend HPE BladeSystem for both bigger companies and smaller ones.
I utilize its modular architecture, which is quite good. It is centralized, so it is good to manage, and the scalability product is also good for efficiently scaling my organization's computing resources. The integration of storage and networking components within HPE BladeSystem is also good for my organization.
The main area for improvement I see is the training process. When you use anything, how easily it is to manage is very important in hyper-converged solutions. If you compare it with VMware, it is very familiar. HPE Converged, however, is very large to understand for a new person.
I am talking about training and management perspective, and user management. A system integrator and any system engineer who will operate and manage the system should find it easy to understand any configuration part and understanding part, which is currently a little bit tough.
In Virtual Connect, we need some improvement. If we are going to move to hybrid, we need to easily move VM transactions from on-premises to cloud. We require a good, more easy process for day-to-day activities.
Performance-wise, HPE BladeSystem is good regarding its ability to support mission-critical applications. However, reliability is all dependent on the core and memories, which will centrally control the entire blade and hyper-converged. We require more reliable things because if something goes down in the controller and center control, it is very tough to manage. We require a centralized image that will be replicated to any other device immediately, and all configurations and everything will come as soon as possible.
I have been dealing with HPE BladeSystem for more than ten years.
HPE BladeSystem's initial setup is okay.
I do not have any metrics to demonstrate changes in network complexity or connectivity options. I have provided a review rating of eight for HPE BladeSystem.
We are using HP BladeSystem for our internal applications.
The feature I find most valuable is the ease of use. It is quite a stable system, and I rarely have to call HP support for issues. The system's reliability is also commendable.
I have no specific ideas for improvement at present. When asked whether the price could be lower, I responded that, as a customer, I always prefer a lower price. In general, there is a 10% to 15% price gap compared to competitors.
I have been working with HP BladeSystem for more than ten years.
HP BladeSystem is quite stable. I do not have to call HP support frequently, which indicates its reliability.
I rate its scalability a ten out of ten. It has the ability to expand and scale effectively.
HP provides technical support that meets my expectations. It is up to the mark, and they provide what I need.
Positive
The setup process is complex.
I worked with HP integrators for the implementation.
In general, there is a 10% to 15% price gap compared to competitors.
When considering competitors, I found Cisco UCS to be a significant rival to HP.
The overall rating for HP BladeSystem is a nine out of ten. I have recommended it to many people.
We use HPE BladeSystem primarily for high availability. It's installed on an HP Converge BladeSystem, and we utilize ten of the sixteen available slots. All ten HPE BladeSystems are clustered, which allows us to leverage their high computing capability to spin up hundreds of VMs. This setup provides us with the performance we need. I work in IT within a telecom infrastructure company and am one of the IT infrastructure engineers responsible for managing the data center infrastructure.
Currently, we're using HPE BladeSystem BL460, but we're planning to migrate to the Synergy System as part of our strategy since the OEM support for the BL460 will eventually end. The most valuable features are its high computing capability and availability. Additionally, the ability to manage all resources from a single dashboard using the OneView solution that comes with the HP Converge system is incredibly beneficial. The efficientand unique environment makes it an excellent fit for our needs.
In terms of improvements, I'd suggest enhancing the stability of the HPE BladeSystem, especially regarding network connectivity. We once had an issue where a system didn’t communicate with the network, and it took a while to diagnose the problem. Eventually, we discovered it was a motherboard issue, but we initially thought it was the network card. Improving the onboard administratordashboard to provide more granular insights, like clearly identifying faultycomponents, would make troubleshooting much more efficient. Aside from that, the system is superb and has been reliable.
I have been using HPE BladeSystem since 2017.
In terms of stability, I’d also rate it a nine.
For scalability, I’d rate HPE BladeSystem a nine. We have over three thousand users connected to the system, and we operate a hybrid cloud environment with both on-prem and cloud resources. While we still use BladeSystem, we’re planning to upgrade to Synergy in the future.
I'd rate HPE BladeSystem a nine for tech support because it's stable and offers superb support, especially with proactive support. Proactive support means the system has a call-to-home configured, and engineers check the resources in the background, even fixing some issues without notifying you. They also provide quarterly reports and replace hardware within 24 hours if needed.
Positive
HPE did the initial setup of HPE BladeSystem, and I worked with them directly. Since then, I’ve been responsible for setting up any additional hardware, which is quite manageable.
I’d rate the setup process at an eight on a scale from one to ten. It’s straightforward but requires some experience and training since it’s an advanced solution.
The deployment time depends on the resources available. A single BladeSystem typically takes about an hour to complete, assuming all the necessary IP addresses and naming conventions are ready.
Regarding the cost, HPE BladeSystem is not cheap. The solution and its support are costly, and there are challenges with renewal and pricing, especially in Nigeria, due to the dollar rate and FX issues. However, it is reliable. I don't have specific figures for licensing costs, as the procurement and finance departments handle them.
I advise using HPE BladeSystem to properly size based on your workload and consider proactive support over essential support. This ensures you get accurate deployment and reliable performance. Overall, I’d rate HPE BladeSystem an eight out of ten, with room for improvement.
We are actually a reseller and consultant for HPE BladeSystem. We work in various industries such as finance, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, education, and hospitality.
The management console for all servers and virtual machines is centralized on one dashboard, which enhances management efficiency.
The robustness and the connectivity between all servers and the storage aspect are the most beneficial features of HPE BladeSystem. Additionally, it offers low latency.
An alternative to VMware could be a significant improvement, especially since VMware licensing has become stringent. Creating an integrated solution could make HPE BladeSystem more appealing.
We have been dealing with HPE BladeSystem for more than eight years.
Our experience with the stability of HPE BladeSystem is generally good. It is quite robust. However, we faced issues in a heterogeneous environment where the majority of problems arose with HPE servers.
There aren’t many complaints about the scalability; the system is quite robust. However, a notable issue occurred in a large telco company where HPE servers were more affected by environmental issues compared to others.
Technical support is generally prompt and good. However, there was a very bad experience with technical support in a specific telco case where support was withdrawn due to corrupted products.
Positive
We have various brands in our portfolio, including Dell, Huawei, Cisco, and others, which we strategically choose based on client's budgets and pain points.
Customers see savings when comparing traditional systems versus BladeSystem. While the initial investment may be higher, the operational expenditure is lower, leading to a reduced total cost of ownership over time.
When HPE was competing with Cisco BladeSystem, it was competitive. However, recent years have seen Cisco winning more deals due to aggressive pricing.
Cisco blade servers are perceived as the best option currently, mainly due to their built-in network capabilities and beneficial licensing. HPE BladeSystem is still recommended for enterprises in various sectors.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.
I'm working just with the Generation 9 and Generation 10 as Generation 8 is obsolete. We are leaving that kind of solution. These generations are a little bit obsolete since the processor, and the spec of the Blades are behind a newer HP solution.
Right now, we're using that with a Citrix server and use it with VMware SX 7.0.
It's scalable, and it's stable.
The product has been simple to set up.
One thing that is already being fixed in the new solution is how you connect with the console of tech management of this Blade or other enclosures. Right now, usually, you have to connect one by one, and it's a little tedious. And besides, the better option or best option they have to improve is to consolidate the way you connect to this platform. Right now, for example, if the new solution (Synergy) has a way to connect to everything and is a one-view console, it would be ideal.
It could always use new tools.
It is a stable platform. The number of issues or the number of failures on the system that we have with this platform is minimal. It's reliable, and the performance is good.
This is important. Usually, you get a cluster configured on that platform. This cluster usually has critical services, and it's important that you put services on a stable platform. Specifically, with generation 9, we have four years with this solution, and in those four years, the issues or failures have been very few.
The solution can scale.
There are 30 people, approximately, who can access the console and manage the whole platform. The server that we have inside of it is related to the virtualization and might have more than 1000 users.
In the past year, support was very good. We got fast answers.
For example, if we have a Blade fail or something like that, the response was very quick. However, right now, it takes so long to change parts, it's not as good. For example, if you need to replace a part of the display, sometimes it takes a while, even if we have a contract. Even if we have an SLA contract, they take so long now.
Neutral
Compared with other brands like Cisco and Dell, HP is very stable and very scalable. It's very useful for the Intel platform that we use it is related to VMware or Citrix.
We like the HP platform and have used it all these years. We are very comfortable with it. It's one reason we want to continue with it. However, the price is not that good.
It is very straightforward to set up. It's not complex.
The length of deployment depends on the way that you configure the Blades. For example, if you're going to work with VMware, the time could be at least 25 to 30 minutes. It is not going to depend on the BladeSystem; it is going to depend on the time of the operate system deployed.
The number of people you need for maintenance depends on the monitoring system that you have. For example, if you have a good monitoring system for this platform you're going to need less than ten specialists, but if you don't have a monitoring system to check the platform, probably you're going to need more than ten people.
The prices right now for HP are high. It has the highest price if you compare it with other solutions like Dell, for example.
That said, I don't directly deal with contracts and can't speak to the exact cost.
We're a customer.
I'm currently using HP Blades for c7000 Enclosures. Also, I'm using two Synergy Blades with Synergy Frames.
The Blades are not being sold anymore, and HP is moving people over to Synergy. I'd advise new users to take advantage of Synergy Blades going forward.
I'd rate it a nine out of ten due to its general stability. Compared to other solutions in the market, HP is quite stable.
We have our ERP system, which is SAP, running on the blade servers. Additionally, we have business applications like intelligent tools and network operations tools running on the BladeSystem, all running on the VMware platform.
We never faced downtime due to hardware failure. The BladeSystem provided stable performance and we were satisfied with the contract from HPE, which renewed every year.
We were pleased with the stability of the system as there were no downtimes for the last ten years due to hardware failures. The contract review and service were satisfactory. The BladeSystem supports our ERP system and business applications, operating smoothly on VMware. The continuous operations without interruptions represent a valuable feature.
The support from HPE has not been satisfactory in the last two to three years. Follow-ups were inadequate, and proposals for system upgrades were delayed. The organization is seeking a third-party company for an extended service overview since support from HPE will not be available after this year.
We have been working with the BladeSystem for over ten years.
We have never faced a downtime due to hardware failure, and the system has been very stable for ten years.
We did not scale our BladeSystem. Instead, when we needed more workloads, we opted to use cloud solutions such as AWS and did not upgrade the on-premise BladeSystem.
The technical support from HPE was not effective in the last two to three years. They were slow in responses, and there was a lack of correct follow-up on issues. The level of service has declined compared to previous years.
Neutral
Before HPE BladeSystem, we used rack servers from HPE. The move to BladeSystem in 2013 was aimed at adopting hypervisor solutions.
The setup process was straightforward and simple, involving configuring the system with our existing network and installing VMware. It took around one to two weeks to integrate with our infrastructure.
The implementation was handled internally with support from HPE's administration training included with the hardware package.
Working with BladeSystem for over ten years has provided significant returns, as we're utilizing the systems beyond the typical five-year hardware change cycle.
We paid approximately 60,000 Saudi Riyals per year for support from HPE, equivalent to $15,000 USD. However, some years, we did not utilize their support services.
We received proposals from HPE's partners and competitors as part of our decision stage.
I recommend HPE BladeSystem, considering it has more updated features, including AI, in their newer systems. I rate the overall solution nine out of ten due to its reliability and performance throughout the years.
I was using the solution for virtualization. I used it for all Microsoft products, Unix and Linux.
Basically, in a cluster, it works really nicely, especially within a cluster environment. Also, it's easily configurable.
HPE BladeSystem that we are using is currently very old. It's not too good. We haven't renewed it. I would like the solution to have more updates.
The stability can be improved. I have been using HPE technology since 2008. I don't know what the new technologies look like.
In short, I would like to improve the stability, support, and pricing of the solution.
Stability-wise, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
The product's scalability is quite significant.
Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.
Around 20 users are using HPE in my company.
The solution is extensively used.
I do have plans to increase the usage of the solution.
The support team's knowledge is quite excellent. The response time of the support is not fast.
The setup was straightforward.
It took about a day to deploy the solution.
Speaking about the steps taken while deploying the solution. I would say we're using the normal HPE solutions if I put it like this.
For deployment and maintenance, I need two people who can manage the servers.
We did the implementation of the solution ourselves.
I need to pay for the license, and it is expensive. We make yearly payments.
I did evaluate other options like Dell. I chose HPE since I think it's much easier to use.
It is a reliable product. I would definitely recommend the solution to those planning to use it.
I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.
We use HPE BladeSystem to develop some applications in Apigee, PHP, .NET, etc. We also use it for PDM i.e. project data management for applications like SolidWorks. Along with that, we use it for file sharing, and like a SaaS application for Webex, SAP, etc.
The product has a lot of options for checking servers and IoT ports using artificial intelligence. They can provide a report on network activities.
The learning material available to understand the functionality of GreenLake is limited. They should provide open learning materials and seminars for detailed knowledge of the product.
We have been using HPE BladeSystem for more than six years.
I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten. It is suitable for small and medium businesses.
I rate the product’s scalability a ten out of ten. It is suitable for small and medium businesses.
The technical support services are good.
Positive
The initial setup process is a ten out of ten. It takes an hour to complete.
The product’s price is high compared to Dell.
They should provide enough information on the functionality to the users. I rate HPE BladeSystem a ten out of ten.
We use the solution for virtualizing databases and servers.
The solution uses less cabling and less space in the data center.
The price of the solution has room for improvement.
I have been using the solution for ten years.
I give the stability a ten out of ten.
I give the scalability a nine out of ten.
We have around ten administrators using the solution in our organization.
We previously used the base system of HPE BladeSystem 1C7.
The initial setup is easy and can be completed within two days.
The implementation was completed in-house with the help of an HPE partner.
The licensing is on an annual basis.
I give the solution an eight out of ten. There are better solutions available in the market.
