No more typing reviews! Try our Samantha, our new voice AI agent.

Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs HPE BladeSystem comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Jun 3, 2026

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

Cisco UCS E-Series Servers
Ranking in Blade Servers
10th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
HPE BladeSystem
Ranking in Blade Servers
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
7.5
Number of Reviews
140
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of June 2026, in the Blade Servers category, the mindshare of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is 3.6%, up from 2.6% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of HPE BladeSystem is 8.4%, down from 14.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Blade Servers Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
HPE BladeSystem8.4%
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers3.6%
Other88.0%
Blade Servers
 

Featured Reviews

AK
Solution Architect at COPYCAT LIMITED
Automation and integration capabilities streamline IT infrastructure management
The most valuable feature of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is the Cisco interface. The server management and automation capabilities have been outstanding in automation, greatly benefiting our IT team. Pricing is acceptable, and these servers have had a significant impact on cost savings and operational efficiency. The integration with Cisco routers simplifies the IT infrastructure.
Kapil Pandey - PeerSpot reviewer
Technology Management Consultant at National Institute for Smart Government - NISG
Reliability and reasonable pricing enhance data center management
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.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"What I can advise other prospective customers is that they should not worry about Cisco's support, stability, and performance."
"Cisco UCS E-Series Servers have been reliable, and it took almost five years for any hardware failure, which was only about a $100 repair, so nothing too major."
"Stability-wise, it is a good product that remains stable."
"The Cisco chassis is very easy to configure and any network engineer or expert can configure the solution and easily integrate it with the chassis."
"Cisco has better visibility and manageability for disaster recovery."
"They are really easy to maintain. I've added RAM to them. I've done a lot of other things with the virtualization."
"The product is overall stable."
"The server management and automation capabilities have been outstanding in automation, greatly benefiting our IT team."
"The solution uses less cabling and less space in the data center."
"It has provided us with a platform on which we have been able to create innovative solutions for our customers at very reasonable prices."
"The most valuable feature of HPE BladeSystem is its upgradability and centralized configuration."
"Remote management features are valuable."
"The features that are the most valuable to us are its scalability, performance, and cost."
"Probably the most value there is the compactness and the density you can get into the data center."
"At the time, when we migrated to BladeSystem, we reduced the amount of energy, amount of space, and we got more capacity."
"We have been very happy with its capabilities."
 

Cons

"I would like to see improvements in VMware integration with Cisco, especially in terms of documentation and integration tools. Support of NVIDIA integration would also make it better."
"The product should also be available in a standard edition or a standard license since currently there is a need to pay for an extra license, which is very expensive, especially when considering the budgeting part of our company."
"I think that's probably one of the biggest failure points with Cisco, from their documentation all the way to their products."
"It is not a solution that is cloud ready."
"I am always asked to justify why we should purchase such expensive hardware when there are other brand names available with same capacity for a lesser price."
"The platform's pricing needs improvement. There could be more collaborative tools included."
"The biggest pain point for us is the matrix for the firmware upgrades. It is a pain. You look at that thing, you might as well be reading Greek. It would be a whole lot better if they could clean up their documentation on it."
"The processing capacity could be improved."
"Although we can manage from a single blade enclosure, the interface is usable for the CPU and memory aspects, the storage goes to our 3PAR, and that requires learning a different tool."
"The profiles need a complete rework, the way the profiles and networks are assigned to the blades isn’t user friendly and is often a hindrance."
"I haven't always been impressed with getting some guy in India. I'm sure that's the biggest complaint everybody gets."
"We are looking for a new product more inline with our goal."
"The solution could improve by having more automation, such as the automatic mapping feature that is available in the Synergy Blade series."
"The only con I can think of with using HP ProLiant is the limited parts of the old servers."
"Really look at it closely, but really look at the Synergy product as well. That seems to me like that's the next evolution of the BladeSystem."
"On very rare occasions, instability was experienced due to driver incompatibilities or firmware maladies."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's expensive, they are quite pricey."
"The product is expensive."
"The solution is expensive."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable. From a commercial point of view, the prices are okay."
"There is a need to pay towards the licensing costs of the solution. The most expensive server from Cisco is Cisco UCS B-Series."
"It is not expensive, really, in this class of server products."
"I don't have access to your financial information or the specific details of this solution's pricing. There are no additional fees. It is the hardware and the support."
"Its pricing was good. We selected this solution because it was within our budget. We paid just once when we bought it. We never bought any license."
"I would recommend this solution for large enterprises. Medium-sized companies would find it difficult to afford the HPE BladeSystem's overall capital expenses."
"We have an annual license."
"We have been satisfied with the price. However, there are additional costs for support."
"​The price could be cheaper."
"There is a one-time purchase for the HPE BladeSystem."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Blade Servers solutions are best for your needs.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
16%
Computer Software Company
10%
Wholesaler/Distributor
8%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
17%
Construction Company
14%
Manufacturing Company
8%
Outsourcing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business3
Midsize Enterprise5
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business29
Midsize Enterprise40
Large Enterprise104
 

Questions from the Community

What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Cisco UCS E-Series Servers?
The pricing of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is okay, costing around 30,000 per year. Support is included in this cost.
What needs improvement with Cisco UCS E-Series Servers?
I would like to see improvements in VMware integration with Cisco, especially in terms of documentation and integration tools. Support of NVIDIA integration would also make it better.
What is your primary use case for Cisco UCS E-Series Servers?
I use Cisco UCS E-Series Servers ( /products/cisco-ucs-e-series-servers-reviews ) for managing our IT infrastructure and supporting AI-driven projects. The integration with Cisco routers simplifies...
How would you choose between HPE's Bladesystem and Synergy?
For me, choosing between HPE’s Bladesystem and Synergy came down to which solution was more powerful, reliable, and stable. It turns out Bladesystem was the winner. Bladesystem is excellent because...
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for HPE BladeSystem?
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 ...
What needs improvement with HPE BladeSystem?
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 v...
 

Also Known As

UCS E-Series Servers
HP ProLiant BL Series Servers, HP ProLiant BladeSystem
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Navaho,  MiroNet AG, Columbia Sportswear
EMIS Health
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. HPE BladeSystem and other solutions. Updated: June 2026.
900,644 professionals have used our research since 2012.