Cisco Intersight Reviews

My main use case for Cisco Intersight is maintaining visibility and connectivity across multiple locations without having to manage everything separately. It helps me centralize network monitoring, understand the status of different sites, and identify connectivity issues more efficiently. Having a unified view is particularly useful when managing distributed locations and making day-to-day network operations more straightforward.

A practical example would be checking connectivity across multiple office locations when one site reports network issues. Instead of separately checking each location, I can use the centralized view to identify which site is experiencing connectivity problems and narrow down where troubleshooting is needed. This makes it easier for us to understand the situation quickly and coordinate with the team responsible for resolving the issue.

One thing that makes our use case particularly valuable is having a centralized view of connectivity across multiple locations instead of relying entirely on individual teams to report issues. It helps us get a clearer picture of whether a problem is isolated to one site or potentially affecting multiple locations. We find that having network visibility in one place makes internal coordination easier, especially when troubleshooting involves different teams.

Our approach to Cisco Intersight's API and provider integration is primarily aimed at making infrastructure management more consistent and reducing repetitive manual work. The API and Terraform provider capabilities are particularly useful for managing server configurations, profiles, and infrastructure resources programmatically rather than relying entirely on manual dashboard operations. However, I wouldn't describe our environment as fully automated from end to end, but there is still scope to expand these integrations and improve workflow automation.

I primarily use power and thermal telemetry as an additional layer of infrastructure monitoring, primarily when evaluating server health and identifying potential capacity or pooling concerns. Cisco Intersight provides useful visibility into power consumption, temperature readings, and hardware alerts, which helps the team understand whether systems are operating within expected limits or not.

The biggest positive impact has been better visibility and less manual effort in managing infrastructure. Cisco Intersight allows me to monitor multiple systems from one place, which makes identifying hardware issues, checking system health, and handling routine maintenance much more straightforward. It has also improved how my team approaches troubleshooting because we can access relevant information centrally instead of relying on separate checks.

However, the practical improvement has been noticeable in troubleshooting and routine monitoring. Having centralized system health information and alerts helps us identify which systems need attention more quickly rather than manually checking each one.

The biggest improvement from moving towards Cisco Intersight driven profiles and configuration management is better consistency across server environments. With standalone UCS manager or manual node management, maintaining identical configuration across multiple servers can become time-consuming, and small differences may develop during individual updates or maintenance activities. Cisco Intersight profiles help standardize configuration and make it easier to identify deviations from the intended setup. I would not claim that configuration drift has been completely eliminated, but centralized profile management makes it easier to maintain consistency and detect configuration differences before they become operational problems.

The main difference is that deploying UCS server profiles and policies through Cisco Intersight makes configuration more standardized across different data center sites. With manual configuration, there is a greater possibility of inconsistent settings, missed steps, or small differences between individual servers. However, from an operational perspective, profile-based deployment provides better consistency, control, and confidence than relying entirely on manual configurations.

Cisco Intersight offers multiple features, but the most useful ones for me are its centralized dashboard, real-time infrastructure health monitoring, and automated configuration management. Having visibility into server health, performance, and alerts in one place makes it easier to identify potential issues without manually checking individual systems repeatedly. I also find the automation capabilities valuable, particularly for repetitive tasks like firmware updates and maintaining consistent configurations across multiple servers. Another useful aspect is proactive alerts and troubleshooting insights, which can help IT teams identify problems earlier and reduce unnecessary downtime. Overall, the biggest advantage is having better visibility and control over infrastructure while reducing manual effort.

One area where automation is particularly helpful is firmware management and routine infrastructure maintenance. Previously, checking firmware versions across multiple servers and coordinating updates could involve a lot of manual effort. With Cisco Intersight, I can manage firmware updates and maintain more consistent configurations through centralized workflows. It helps us reduce repetitive checks and makes it easier to identify systems that need attention. The biggest improvement is not necessarily eliminating manual work completely, but rather making routine maintenance more organized, consistent, and less time-consuming.

Cisco Intersight is not just a monitoring dashboard, but its real value comes from bringing infrastructure visibility, management, and automation together in one platform. The ability to monitor system health, receive alerts, and manage routine operations centrally can make a noticeable difference when dealing with multiple servers or environments. Its automation capabilities are worth exploring more deeply because many teams may initially use it only for basic monitoring and overlook how much repetitive operational work can potentially be simplified.

Active hardware telemetry is useful because it gives our operations team better visibility into component health and helps identify potential hardware failures before they cause major disruptions. I primarily see its value in monitoring hardware alerts, checking component status, and identifying issues such as disk, memory, or power-related faults more efficiently.

One area where Cisco Intersight could be improved is making the interface and troubleshooting workflows more intuitive, especially for users who do not work with the platform every day. Sometimes finding the exact information needed or understanding certain alerts can require navigating to multiple locations. I would also appreciate more actionable recommendations alongside alerts rather than just identifying an issue and leaving the next step entirely to me. Overall, the functionality is strong, but improving usability and making troubleshooting more straightforward would enhance the everyday experience.

Apart from usability, Cisco Intersight could benefit from smoother integration with third-party monitoring and IT management tools. Having alerts, performance data, and infrastructure information flow more seamlessly between platforms would reduce the need to switch between different systems. Performance-wise, keeping dashboards responsive when managing larger environments would also be important. I would also like to see more practical documentation, particularly step-by-step troubleshooting guides and real-world examples for automation workflows. These improvements would make the platform more accessible and efficient for everyday operations for new and existing users.

Smoother integration with third-party monitoring and IT management tools would allow alerts, performance data, and infrastructure information to flow more seamlessly between platforms. These improvements, including usability enhancements, would make the platform more accessible and efficient for new and existing users.

I have been using Cisco Intersight for around three to four years.

Cisco Intersight is stable.

Cisco Intersight is quite scalable from a centralized infrastructure management perspective.

I would rate customer service eight out of ten.

Before using Cisco Intersight, infrastructure management was more dependent on traditional UCS manager and manual configuration for individual systems. While UCS manager worked well for managing local UCS environments, maintaining consistency across multiple systems and locations would involve additional manual effort. The move towards Cisco Intersight was primarily driven by the need for centralized visibility, easier configuration management, standardized server profiles, and more efficient monitoring.

The main considerations would be security, data governance, operational simplicity, and infrastructure requirements. The public SaaS model is attractive because it reduces the burden of maintaining a separate management appliance, simplifies upgrades, and provides access to centralized management without requiring additional infrastructure.

As mentioned previously, manual work has been reduced using Cisco Intersight. This ultimately saves time and makes the work easier and more straightforward. This is the most significant example of ROI I can provide.

My overall impression is that Cisco Intersight offers good management capabilities, but pricing and licensing can become an important consideration depending on the size of infrastructure and features required. Basic setup and connecting supported infrastructure to the platform are relatively straightforward, although configuration profiles, policies, and integration require technical expertise. From an operational perspective, the biggest consideration is ensuring that the additional functionality and time saving justify the ongoing licensing expenses.

The alternatives worth considering were traditional UCS managers, VMware-based infrastructure management tools, and other enterprise infrastructure management platforms such as HPE OneView. Each has its strengths, depending on your hardware environment, needs, automation requirements, and level of centralized management needed. From a practical standpoint, ecosystem compatibility, centralized management, and automation capabilities were the key considerations for Cisco Intersight.

I would rate Cisco Intersight around eight out of ten.

Governance and security are critically important in infrastructure management because even a small mistake can have operational consequences. Cisco Intersight's centralized access controls and security-oriented management approach are useful, but I believe organizations should still maintain clear permissions, monitoring, and human oversight over AI-driven recommendations or actions. I would prefer AI to assist with identifying issues, analyzing system health, and suggesting corrective actions, rather than automatically making critical infrastructure changes without approval. These things I think are important for the organization. Overall, AI capabilities are valuable, but reliability, accountability, and security should always come first.

Cisco Intersight's AI capabilities are useful for identifying potential infrastructure issues and providing troubleshooting insights, but I would not treat every recommendation as automatically accurate. The reliability is more valuable when AI insights are supported by actual system telemetry and historical data. Overall, AI is a useful support tool, but it should complement technical expertise rather than replace it.

We are still exploring how Cisco Intersight's AI capabilities can be incorporated more deeply into the organization. At present, our primary reliance is on infrastructure telemetry, health alerts, and diagnostic information to identify and troubleshoot issues. However, I want to validate its accuracy and practical benefits in our environment before relying heavily on AI-driven recommendations.

My recommendation to others reading reviews on PeerSpot is to evaluate their existing infrastructure and identify where centralized management and automation would genuinely reduce operational effort. Cisco Intersight is particularly useful for organizations already running Cisco UCS infrastructure as its integration, server profile management, monitoring, and automation capabilities are strong. Before adopting it, I would recommend understanding the licensing structure, deployment options, and compatibility with existing ITSM and infrastructure automation tools.

The first use case is to build a hybrid cloud. The first thing is to configure the server. The server could be located either on an edge location or on the data center, or it could be a remote office branch office. Cisco Intersight gives us a single pane of glass through which we can configure and monitor a server which is geographically spread, based on different locations.

Another use case involves certain workflows that we can run using Cisco Intersight. For example, it has cloud orchestration capabilities. We use it to run NetApp-related day-to-day operations. For example, we can do some volume-related, storage-related tasks directly from Cisco Intersight. It invokes a Terraform-based script through which you can just do your day-to-day operational tasks.

Another use case is that we also leverage Cisco Intersight for installing ESXi, as well as it has tight integration with Red Hat OpenShift. For the customers who are going into Kubernetes, for that we leverage Cisco Intersight, and we can directly boot those servers using the Red Hat operating system. Basically, it's a core operating system of Red Hat.

In Cisco Intersight, if you compare it from Cisco UCS Manager, it's local to a single UCS domain. But with Cisco Intersight, if you have a large data center, you can manage it and you have great visibility using Cisco Intersight. You can do a lot of automation using Cisco Intersight, and the consistent policy can be applied thoroughly to your resource group. It always gives you a cloud experience, especially when you talk about compute.

I particularly appreciate the policy feature. For example, I have two or three different stacks. For the first stack, I'm running a bare metal where I need to deploy Oracle Linux or Red Hat Enterprise Linux. And in the second stack, I need to deploy a VMware-based workload. And the third could be a Kubernetes distribution. With Cisco Intersight, you get flexibility through which you can create different policies, because everything is policy-based. And you can still have a consistent configuration and apply those policies based on your requirement. This is one of the best features because if you look into the VIC card of a Cisco server, which is a Virtual Interface Card, for each operating system, you need to have a specific configuration. There are certain templates which are already there. For example, if I need to select a VIC card of 15,000 series VIC card, there will be a predefined template for VMware, which I can select and use it for my server profile. That is one of the best benefits I can think of having Cisco Intersight.

The challenge could be if there are any bugs. Most of the time, you may feel that the TCAM resources are getting full on the Nexus just because of some bug or the configuration is not supported. Or sometimes, if there are any vulnerabilities happening on the current running firmware, those are challenges we have. And if you talk about from the compute side, there were initial bugs such as a CPU throttle issue. Because of that, the chassis was not running in an optimum way. You may see performance issues during that time. For that, Cisco released a patch, and it got fixed.

I think Cisco Intersight should allow more automation capabilities. It should be more open, and it should provide more automation capabilities. I think there is also a scope of making it a little bit simpler because a lot of policy and config sometimes becomes confusing for the user because it has a lot of config. Maybe they can do a little bit of simplification with Cisco Intersight.

I have been using this for more than seven years.

In general, it's good when I compare it. From Cisco Intersight, you will not face any issue. But if you look into the hardware side, if you are not getting proper cooling, if the cooling in the data center is not that efficient, then you might see some temperature-related issue which can impact the performance, and you will get a lot of alerts. But the good thing is that Cisco Intersight will be able to capture everything in detail, and even you can configure the call home. So you will get notified if anything is going wrong. Even if one port is also down in one of your fabric interconnects, you can immediately get an email. That is a good thing.

It's very smooth. If you talk about scalability, you can create a server profile immediately, and you can map to multiple servers the moment you try to scale. Similarly, scaling down goes the same way. You can just disassociate those server profiles and remove it. Those servers are free for use again. It's quite good.

Cisco TAC in general is quite good. But sometimes, it totally depends upon the reason of that TAC case. For example, if I'm opening a case and that case is getting landed to one of the US engineers, or it's in South America or North America, I expect the quality of support will be very good. But sometimes because of the locality or the region specific, if the case gets landed into some other queue, some other region, I might feel that inefficiency from the support side. But overall, it's good. If it's very urgent, you can immediately ask the duty manager to escalate this issue. They will put a lot of attention into solving the things. Overall, I can say that the support side is good.

I am currently working with NetApp. I work on Cisco and NetApp products, both. I have used NetApp BlueXP, which is rebranded with the name NetApp Console.

For the beginner, definitely it's not that straightforward. You need to read the document properly. If there are any deployment guides, such as how to set up Cisco Intersight environment, you need to work through thoroughly. It's not straightforward if you compare it with how UCS Manager used to be. Definitely, it's a little bit complex because of multiple policies, and you need to know how you are calling the objects, because it's kind of object-oriented based. First you create a policy, then you need to call that policy in some different object. Those things are there. But once you get accustomed and practiced on Cisco Intersight, then it's easy for you. But for a starter, definitely it's a little bit complex.

It totally depends upon what you want from Cisco Intersight, because they have different categories of licenses. For example, you have Advantage license and Essential licenses. Definitely, if you want to do a lot of automation using Cisco Intersight, you need to go with the Advantage license, and that can be a little bit pricey.

I work as a partner. For optimizing, Cisco has various tools. If you talk from a network point of view, they have recently launched Nexus One. That gives enterprise an opportunity to configure a heterogeneous environment. For example, if you're having a campus networking and data center using different devices such as Catalyst, Nexus switches, you can still manage everything. And at the same time, if you still have software-defined network, which is the ACI product from Cisco, you can still manage that. With that, you will get a single pane of glass to configure and to automate the things. You don't need to log in to multiple setups to look into each device. And on top of that, they also have telemetry. That tells you how the traffic pattern is going, and based on that, you can apply configuration on your devices.

In our lab also, we have Cisco switches. You can develop a lot of automation because Cisco is rapidly working on DevNet. You have different options. You can use NSO also to configure the devices, or you can integrate with Terraform, or they also have infrastructure as code. You can leverage those playbooks if you're dealing with Ansible, and you can also do the automation on your day-to-day ops. Recently, Cisco also has some announcement with Quali. It's a stack automation. We are doing the testing with Quali. Basically, this will help for Day 0, Day 1, and Day 2 deployment or Day 2 operations as well. It supports multiple stacks. And suppose, as per looking into engineering effort, suppose some team has already developed a lot of playbooks for different tasks. If suppose moving into a different tool, can say that so we are wasting a lot of engineering effort. But with the stack automation Quali, you can still use those playbooks and can do your Day 2 operation. I think that will definitely help an organization in their Day 2 operation and can help the efficiency in their operations.

With Splunk, it's very good. Splunk has a very great capability. You can do log analysis. You can have a deep visibility. And you can also have Cisco ThousandEyes. That helps you the entire network packet flow. It can even look into the application side of it and tell a network engineer that the problem is not on the network side, it's the application itself is having some issues. Visibility-wise, they have different tools, different offerings. You need to get the right tool for yourself. And Splunk is a great tool if you want to get a lot of logging, telemetry data. You can put everything into Splunk and you can get a dashboard that helps in improving your operational visibility, helps you to detect the threat as well. You can create different dashboards. And the best part is that if you're having a converged infrastructure in your data center, you can have a visibility of each stack. It's not only about having compute, network, storage. You can still look into GPU, NVIDIA side of it, or any Kubernetes that you're running, for example, Red Hat OpenShift. It's very good visibility if you're going with Splunk.

It definitely enhances the troubleshooting capabilities. And also, suppose you have built a SOC team, a Security Operations Center. If you have a proper Splunk dashboard setup, it will help the SOC team directly also because they can immediately look into if there are any abnormality happening, a sudden spike happening within the network or any application is getting compromised. The SOC team also can get heavily benefited if you have a proper Splunk setup in your environment.

Cisco Intersight definitely enhances the troubleshooting capabilities. Because as I mentioned, the first is you can directly work with TAC seamlessly. Cisco Technical Assistance Center is the TAC. In the old days, during the old time, we needed to work on an individual server, provide the logs from a single domain. It was a very cumbersome task, and it was lots of time-consuming. But with Cisco Intersight, now you can directly create the support bundle, and it can be fed directly to Cisco TAC. That helps you in getting engaged with the Cisco TAC or getting proper support from Cisco. Apart from that, doing the upgrades. Since now it's a SaaS and it's a centralized product, if you plan to upgrade your Cisco Intersight, if you plan to upgrade your UCS domain through Cisco Intersight, you can directly do it. You don't need to log in locally to each domain. That is one of the great enhancements that I can see.

I purchased Cisco ASA-V from Marketplace. My overall review rating for this product is 8.

My main use case for Cisco Intersight is to register our Cisco UCS servers and apply profiles to our servers with configurations, firmware deployment automatically, and install the operating system for the hypervisors.

A specific example of how I use Cisco Intersight for this process is when I'm claiming a server to Cisco Intersight, assigning the profile, and after installation of the configuration and everything, I assign it the OS install workflow, where I install an ESX server, and therefore the configuration of the ESXi host is already predefined.

For monitoring, if there's an outage or something not working, I can open a TAC case immediately, and if there's an issue, I can use KVM for troubleshooting as well.

In my experience, the best features Cisco Intersight offers are OS deployment, configuration profiles, and KVM, so I can log in from the cloud to the KVM and directly restart multiple servers at once without connecting to a CIMC on each server itself.

Out of those features, I find myself using KVM the most because it is highly efficient for my needs.

Cisco Intersight has positively impacted my organization by providing more automation and less manual work, as everything can be automatic after registration to Cisco Intersight and offering more visibility as well.

Regarding improvements for Cisco Intersight, I would say more third-party integration is needed. At the moment it does have a basic integration of Pure Storage, so I can add my Pure Storage if I have an advanced license, but the problem is most of the features I cannot use itself, such as creating new storage or installing updates and firmware updates directly from there as well.

I have been using Cisco Intersight for six months.

Cisco Intersight is stable.

Cisco Intersight's scalability is solid and acceptable.

Customer support for Cisco Intersight is amazing. If I have an issue, I open it with customer support or I contact my account manager. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate the customer support a ten.

I did not previously use a different solution.

Regarding my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing, we had no setup cost because we set it up ourselves, and the pricing is solid for what we get.

My company has a business relationship with this vendor as a partner.

I have seen a return on investment, as we need fewer employees, and most of it can be done from one dashboard.

Regarding my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing, we had no setup cost because we set it up ourselves, and the pricing is solid for what we get.

Before choosing Cisco Intersight, I did not evaluate other options. We evaluated the server platform itself, and because we went for Cisco servers, we decided to go for Cisco Intersight.

I would rate Cisco Intersight a nine out of ten.

I give it a nine because personally, I think it is one of the best management tools ever. I have worked before with different server vendors and different management, and I think the usability and the features are rounded up. There is a lot more automation than just manual work, where you have it on most of the vendor systems.

Regarding Cisco Intersight's AI capabilities, I think its governance and security are good, and this also assists me in certain ways.

The accuracy and reliability of the output from Cisco Intersight is actually pretty good, and most of it handles itself.

I face no specific challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks that Cisco addresses.

I assess the operational efficiency of Cisco in my IT environment as perfect, as I need it.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco Intersight is that it's a solid ten out of ten, as it's perfect.

End-to-end visibility from Cisco affects my organization's troubleshooting capabilities a lot, as it mostly finds things already on the dashboard if there's an issue.

My advice for others looking into using Cisco Intersight is if you're going for Cisco servers, Cisco Intersight should definitely be a solution you implement if you want to have visibility and more automation to do mass deployment. My overall rating for Cisco Intersight is nine out of ten.

I deployed Cisco Intersight for my customers, but I do not use it in my company now. We don't use Cisco Intersight for our company, as we've deployed it to other institutions. While I am still supporting them, we deployed Cisco Intersight a few years back.

The most valuable features I find in Cisco Intersight include the fact that it's a cloud-managed solution, which automates the process when a part on the server goes faulty. For example, if you have a module that goes faulty, automatically a TAC case opens at the Cisco level, and everything is automated, meaning there's no need to check for this.

The orchestration when creating a service profile for the servers lets you spin it off on other servers, so it's more of a management layer. It's not on-premise; it's on the cloud, making it easily available. I would say it simplifies the management and orchestration layer.

Cisco keeps innovating their products, so right now I think they are quite good for the time being.

Regarding additional features I would like to see in the future to make Cisco Intersight even better, I don't have this answer right now, as I will need to check and explore it more in depth. As I mentioned, customer use of Cisco Intersight is not something that's easily sellable here in the country, where I have only done two deployments over the past five years, with the next deployment likely happening early next year, so I have not had that much chance to work with it extensively.

I've been working with Cisco Intersight since the last deployment, which was back in 2020.

Assessing the stability and reliability of Cisco Intersight, I find the reliability is very good. There is only one thing I don't know yet: I need to inquire about what happens if my subscription gets expired. Will I be able to use that equipment, considering that it's a cloud subscription? After five years, if I don't have access to the Cisco Intersight portal, how do I manage my servers if I want to conduct some test environments?

Cisco Intersight scales straightforwardly with the growing needs of the organization. Each Cisco equipment purchased can be onboarded onto Cisco Intersight as long as you have the correct SKU license, so I don't think this is an issue.

I would rate the technical support by Cisco as an eight or nine, because Cisco TAC is one of the best TACs I work with.

Assessing the operational efficiency of Cisco, I find they are doing a good job for the time being, so I would rate them an eight out of ten.

My deployment of Cisco Intersight was straightforward, as we did not encounter any issues. Before Cisco Intersight, we used the traditional Cisco UCS on-premise. I deployed it before, and when we got Cisco Intersight, we used the same logic, managing to do the full deployment. We had professional services from Cisco included, but we did not use it, aside from QA, where the Cisco engineer connected and vetted all the configurations at that time.

My deployment of Cisco Intersight was straightforward, as we did not encounter any issues. Before Cisco Intersight, we used the traditional Cisco UCS on-premise. I deployed it before, and when we got Cisco Intersight, we used the same logic, managing to do the full deployment. We had professional services from Cisco included, but we did not use it, aside from QA, where the Cisco engineer connected and vetted all the configurations at that time.

My deployment of Cisco Intersight was straightforward, as we did not encounter any issues. Before Cisco Intersight, we used the traditional Cisco UCS on-premise. I deployed it before, and when we got Cisco Intersight, we used the same logic, managing to do the full deployment. We had professional services from Cisco included, but we did not use it, aside from QA, where the Cisco engineer connected and vetted all the configurations at that time.

Regarding pricing for Cisco Intersight, all the prices from different vendors have drastically increased during these four years, so I would say it's expensive. However, when you look at what you get, the product and the value-added features of the products mean if you can finance it, then for sure everyone would go with Cisco instead of the different options, especially when it concerns servers. On the firewall and switch side, they have other competitors, but for the UCS servers, UCS X, and the Fabric Interconnect, we would definitely recommend Cisco.

When considering whether Cisco Intersight is not well spread due to pricing or because they should improve their marketing strategy, I think it's primarily due to pricing first. We have many competitors such as Supermicro, Dell, and HP, which are very aggressive in the market right now, leading most companies to consider the price of solutions. When it comes to price, other competitors are somehow more competitive.

As for whether Cisco Intersight is a market leader and the best option on the market, I don't know about other vendors with similar software as a service. For now, I only know about Cisco Intersight.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco Intersight is that it's very good. On their websites, it is very intuitive.

Cisco keeps innovating their products, so right now I think they are quite good for the time being. I would rate this review an eight out of ten.

My main use case for Cisco Intersight involves working with clients who have Cisco Intersight with Cisco UCSX, which I have attended for two years, focusing on daily provisioning and managing the servers and networking from the infrastructure.

A quick, specific example of how I use Cisco Intersight to help a client is through provisioning virtual machines with VMware in Cisco UCS.

Cisco Intersight has positively impacted my organization by providing a very standard solution; all the policies require me to work with a workflow to power up the server, and the potential is the consistency across the platform and infrastructure.

I have seen specific outcomes or results, becoming more efficient because I can extrapolate features and configurations to another environment.

The best features Cisco Intersight offers are its policies, which represent a big jump in difference compared to Cisco UCS Manager.

The most valuable aspect of the policy feature in my work is the consistency.

Regarding Cisco Intersight's AI capabilities, I find its governance and security very useful because I can do patching and make upgrades more easily, unlike with UCS Manager.

I have found the AI-driven suggestions or alerts to be very useful, as I believe all tools and technology are heading in this direction.

Regarding my main use case for Cisco Intersight, I have a few challenges with Cisco UCS. Intersight is very useful in comparison with Cisco UCS Manager, though it is complicated to learn at first. The UI and interface are too complex, and I believe visual focus or visual policies must be more easily managed. When I put the policy, I do not know what is inherited by the other policies.

Another challenge we face is the difficulty of working in the cloud with Cisco Intersight. To assist my customer, I need to work directly with the servers in production without any labs to prove before the implementation. I could start a Cisco UCS emulator and work with a lab in UCS Manager, but I cannot in Cisco Intersight.

For how Cisco Intersight can be improved, I focus on two points: visual policies, which I believe is the most important improvement, and the possibility to work with local labs in a local infrastructure.

I have been using Cisco Intersight for five years or more, and I have many experiences with Cisco UCS, starting from the M1 UCS server.

Cisco Intersight is very stable.

Regarding scalability, Cisco Intersight is very useful because I can manage scalability easily with policies.

The customer support is lower now than in past years; it feels worse than before.

Before Cisco Intersight, I was using competitive solutions from Dell and HP, but nothing compares to Cisco UCS.

I have seen a return on investment in the long run.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing indicates that the cost is higher than the competition, and it is too difficult to make the customer understand the benefit of Cisco UCS support.

I did not evaluate other options before choosing Cisco Intersight; I believe that it is unique.

I would rate Cisco Intersight an eight. I find it closer to an eight because of the learning curve involved in learning to use it for the first time; however, once this curve is surpassed, it is very easy to handle. The advice I would give to others looking into using Cisco Intersight is to utilize Cisco CVDs, the Cisco validated documentation. I have given this review an overall rating of eight.

My main use case for Cisco Intersight is opening service requests as needed.

A specific example of a time I used Cisco Intersight for opening a service request involves an issue with a fabric interconnect where we logged into Cisco Intersight, identified the issue, and then opened a case with Cisco TAC to have them pull the logs directly from the fabric interconnect with the issue.

In addition to opening service requests, Cisco Intersight lets us see what support contracts are attached to each UCS blade, chassis, or fabric interconnect.

The best features Cisco Intersight offers include a quick way to oversee your environment, and since we're read-only with the basic license, opening up tickets with Cisco TAC is much easier.

The dashboard and the alerts provide a quick way to see what is going on in my environment.

Cisco Intersight has positively impacted my organization by making it a lot quicker to diagnose or foresee problems that might be coming up, and since it is a technology that is at the heart of our infrastructure, it helps us feel safe.

A specific example of how Cisco Intersight helped me diagnose or foresee a problem involves being able to see when support contracts were going to expire for specific equipment, allowing us to resolve the issue before they went out of support.

I believe Cisco Intersight's licensing is quite expensive for a public healthcare environment, and I would like to see lower prices for us.

I think everything else is just fine, so I do not have more to add about the needed improvements.

I have been using Cisco Intersight for a little over five years.

Cisco Intersight is stable.

With our environment, we do not need to scale Cisco Intersight.

Customer support is always on the ball.

We have not previously used a different solution; we have been with Cisco for a long time except for the phone system, where we were with another partner before.

I haven't seen a return on investment; our Cisco products are part of our environment and they inherit cost.

Pricing, setup cost, and licensing is always a challenging question; it has always been quite a challenge to understand what we have when we need to pay, and our current partners are having difficulties keeping up with us.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing Cisco Intersight.

Regarding Cisco Intersight's AI capabilities, we have not used it yet, so I cannot comment on its governance and security.

As for Cisco Intersight's AI capabilities concerning accuracy and reliability of output, we have not used it yet.

I do not face specific challenges with hybrid and distributed enterprise networks that Cisco addresses.

One of the issues is licensing, smart licensing, and trying to navigate through those for different products, affecting the operational efficiency of Cisco in my IT environment.

My impression of the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco is that it is getting a lot better, especially with products Cisco IQ.

End-to-end visibility from Cisco impacts my organization's troubleshooting capabilities by clearly telling us where we are with our code versions, enabling us to stay ahead of the game security-wise.

My advice to others looking into using Cisco Intersight is that if you do not have it, you are missing out.

I have been using Cisco Intersight on and off for five years. My main use case for Cisco Intersight is managing the Cisco UCS platform. An example of how I use Cisco Intersight to manage my UCS platform is that we normally connect to customers in the Cisco UCS environment where we configure VLANs and set up alerts; basically, we configure the whole Cisco UCS platform using Cisco Intersight.

Regarding my main use case for Cisco Intersight, if we need to set up a brand new project for a customer, we use Cisco Intersight to connect and configure from concept to a production-ready system.

The best features Cisco Intersight offers are seamless updates that do not require manual intervention; it evaluates and recommends actions for the Cisco UCS environment. I find that there is no downside to Cisco Intersight; everything we use is basically excellent, so I do not see anything negative about it.

Cisco Intersight has positively impacted my organization as I am part of managed services, and we support many environments for our customers; the ease of use is a single login to Cisco's site that provides access to multiple environments without needing separate accounts.

Regarding specific outcomes, Cisco Intersight makes onboarding much easier; it provides comprehensive hardware monitoring, firmware management, proactive alerts, server inventory, UCS configurations, service profiles for compliance, support integration, automation capabilities, and it offers multi-site visibility with cloud-based access that simplifies management.

Currently, I do not see any need for improvements in Cisco Intersight from my use case of managing daily hardware issues such as DIMM failures or CPU problems. I have no additional thoughts on needed improvements.

Cisco Intersight is very stable.

Cisco Intersight's scalability is excellent, as it is much easier to add more nodes and integrate new nodes as needed.

For customer support, I have not needed much from Cisco Intersight support since it works well; the few times we did call, Cisco support was very knowledgeable and prompt in assisting us.

Before Cisco Intersight, we used the on-premises Cisco UCS Manager, and we still have some environments that use the on-premises version.

I have seen a return on investment with Cisco Intersight; it saves my team time during troubleshooting and upgrades.

My advice to others looking into using Cisco Intersight is that if they have the budget, they should implement it and ensure their staff has the proper training and experience, as this makes all the difference. I would rate this product 10 out of 10.

Positive

Most of our customers use Cisco Intersight for virtual environments, primarily for VMware vSphere hypervisor and some Windows clusters. They see it as a major tool for data center management tasks and system policy management.

We have visibility into other products and storage, facilitating coexistence with Cisco and other vendors, thereby enabling us to see all the infrastructure clearly.

Cisco Intersight is a very effective tool for data center infrastructure management. It provides visibility into other products and storage, and is beneficial for environments where Cisco and other vendors coexist, allowing full visibility of the entire infrastructure. We have visibility to other products and storages, some networking. It is also valuable for its integration capabilities with other products.

There is a significant issue regarding migration from UCS Manager into Intersight without formatting the Fabric Interconnects (FI), which is problematic in a production environment. A seamless migration tool from UCS Manager to Intersight would be beneficial.

I have been using the solution since it was released, actually since the announcement of M7, which might be a couple of months prior.

As far as I know, the solution is quite stable. There have been no glitches or problems directly related to Intersight.

There have been no scalability limitations or issues that I can mention.

I am not personally involved in dealing with customer service or support. However, I understand my colleague received satisfactory answers from them.

Positive

I am not involved in the setup process as a presale consultant; it is managed by the post-sales engineers.

The implementation is performed by a group of engineers who are familiar with the systems.

Most of our customers purchase the system for three years or more. I'm not aware if any customers use an ROI tool to assess their returns.

I haven't heard any complaints. The pricing mechanism sounds fair.

As a technical consultant, I focus on the technical aspects and needs of the customers. I always try to stay within budget and sometimes advise customers to slightly increase their budgets for better solutions. 

In all, I rate Cisco Intersight a strong nine out of ten.