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

Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs HPE Synergy comparison

Why PeerSpot?
 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 3, 2025

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
12th
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
7.7
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
HPE Synergy
Ranking in Blade Servers
5th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
7.0
Number of Reviews
91
Ranking in other categories
Composable Infrastructure (1st)
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2026, in the Blade Servers category, the mindshare of Cisco UCS E-Series Servers is 3.7%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of HPE Synergy is 8.5%, down from 17.3% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Blade Servers Mindshare Distribution
ProductMindshare (%)
HPE Synergy8.5%
Cisco UCS E-Series Servers3.7%
Other87.8%
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.
MS
Works at Saudi Telecom Company
Manage servers efficiently with an integrated view while reducing downtime
My use case is to serve the complete IT environment of the telecom, including all cloud applications. I use HPE Synergy servers for my private cloud and for network management systems. 70% of my workload is running on HPE servers The integrated view, such as managing complete servers and…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"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."
"Stability-wise, it is a good product that remains stable."
"Cisco has better visibility and manageability for disaster recovery."
"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."
"What I can advise other prospective customers is that they should not worry about Cisco's support, stability, and performance."
"The product's most valuable features are stability, speed, and scalability."
"The server management and automation capabilities have been outstanding in automation, greatly benefiting our IT team."
"The product is overall stable."
"The composable feature is amazing as it helps avoid downtimes."
"Where it used to take one week to re-image or upgrade our hosts, it can now take one day."
"The solution is built very well. It's very robust and durable."
"The support from HPE Synergy is very good."
"With OneView, we can take care of all our servers in one dashboard."
"Great flexibility including configuring the interconnects on the use of the chassis."
"In today's world, there isn't a better solution to create a private cloud for them."
"The solution has decreased our deployment time by 10 to 20 percent."
 

Cons

"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 tool must be made compatible with multi-vendor ecosystems."
"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 processing capacity could be improved."
"I think that's probably one of the biggest failure points with Cisco, from their documentation all the way to their products."
"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."
"One thing that could be improved is the cost - it is very high for this Blade chassis as compared to other vendors. Especially in Asia. Asian customers mostly prefer a cost effective, cheaper solution."
"Sometimes there are firmware or software difficulties when connecting between networks or with storage."
"Over the two years of using HPE Synergy, we have found some hardware failures that are frequent in the SOP models, CNA cards, and converged network adapters. These failures are frequently happening for a lot of the customers."
"The installation and initial setup process is complex and needs to be improved."
"A big thing for me is moving InfoSight for ProLiant into OneView, or at least connecting it. Today we have to use the iLO Amplifier Pack and that would require us to reconfigure iLO on every single one of the servers, independently, to get that data into InfoSight. We're really looking for a single control and management plane."
"They must improve the OneView tools."
"In the past, I have had issues with configurations."
"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."
"Its management needs some work. It is not the best in terms of management. It has decent management. Its user interface can also be better."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It's expensive, they are quite pricey."
"There is a need to pay towards the licensing costs of the solution. The most expensive server from Cisco is Cisco UCS B-Series."
"The pricing of the solution is reasonable. From a commercial point of view, the prices are okay."
"The solution is expensive."
"The product is expensive."
"Nutanix was really hard to implement, and it was very pricey compared to what we get from Synergy."
"We pay about £500 for the solution."
"We bought everything outright to start with. We don't do much consumption-based stuff."
"When we made the purchase of the hardware, we added Professional Services to it."
"We outright purchased Synergy."
"VMware is part of the cost. We bought the chassis, we bought the solution. The blades are roughly running us $60,000 a pop right now."
"The solution can be expensive because it requires both hardware and software purchases."
"The biggest cost is the VMware licensing."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Blade Servers solutions are best for your needs.
920,939 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Construction Company
17%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Outsourcing Company
7%
Outsourcing Company
14%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Manufacturing Company
9%
Healthcare 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 Business31
Midsize Enterprise15
Large Enterprise56
 

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 Synergy?
As far as the prices are concerned, rack mount solutions are less expensive than HPE Synergy prices; however, HPE Synergy prices are higher but justify themselves as the solution accommodates all t...
What needs improvement with HPE Synergy?
In my opinion, for future improvements in HPE Synergy, there should be better management of power consumption complexity as well as an increase in the number of servers that can fit in a single Syn...
 

Also Known As

UCS E-Series Servers
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Navaho,  MiroNet AG, Columbia Sportswear
HudsonAlpha, Virgin Media, EMIS, United
Find out what your peers are saying about Cisco UCS E-Series Servers vs. HPE Synergy and other solutions. Updated: November 2026.
920,939 professionals have used our research since 2012.