Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

FlexPod XCS vs IBM VersaStack comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Feb 2, 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

FlexPod XCS
Ranking in Converged Infrastructure
6th
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
295
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
IBM VersaStack
Ranking in Converged Infrastructure
10th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.4
Number of Reviews
3
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Converged Infrastructure category, the mindshare of FlexPod XCS is 9.3%, up from 9.3% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of IBM VersaStack is 1.3%, down from 2.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Converged Infrastructure
 

Featured Reviews

Chris Haight - PeerSpot reviewer
Integrates everything so you are using fewer tools
The traditional UCS Blades do not take much storage internally. You would be challenged to create an HCI (Hype converged Infrastructure) solution on FlexPod / UCS or any other solution that pools internal storage. Now, with UCS X-Series, you can carve off an HCI solution, software defined pooled solution if you want. This was one area of improvement that I wanted to see and can now realize with the refresh of the Cisco UCS infrastructure. With modern modular infrastructure, RESTful API has been added, there are more integrations, ServiceNow and vCenter along with tighter plug-ins. There is cross-user interface launching, for example with Windows Admin Center. The solutions are using Ansible and Terraform for deploying infrastructure as code. All the improvements that I wanted from the last gen are here or coming. With modern workloads and GPU use on the rise, adding GPUs to modern modular infrastructure will have some pros and cons. Typically, you can add one or two GPU's to a blade with no or little trade off. With the UCS X-Series, if you are doing a GPU farm, then you may have to sacrifice compute blades in the front slots to put in a GPU tray / module. A chassis holds eight compute blades, but if you are adding a ton of GPUs, a single GPU tray or more will reduce your blade count by as many GPU trays you add. This is not just a Cisco UCS X-Series problem. It is an industry problem with modular infrastructure and one that I would like to see get solved! I am looking into one such solution, VMware BITFUSION where you can send CUDA requests over the network to a BITFUSION server with the results sent back to the requestor, early stages here and only scratched the surface thus far. With Cisco UCS X-Series, I would like to see the fabric interconnects built into the chassis instead of being external. With the fabric interconnects, the real footprint of UCS X-Series is 9U, where some of the competing solutions are 7U and have collapsed the network fabric into the chassis. This is another thing that I would like to see from Cisco, though, not really on the NetApp side of the fence, NetApp is solid storage.
reviewer2058714 - PeerSpot reviewer
A very high IOPS that gives more I/O transactions per second
Scalability used to be an issue so at that time it was rated an eight out of ten. We have become OPEX-based and rent storage from them. Physical storage is about 200% of our requirements but we only pay for what we use. This resolved all of our scalability issues. When we reach a certain threshold like 100%, OPEX calls us and asks if we want to add more storage. Our total capacity right now is 300 terabytes but we are only using around 200 terabytes. We bought the storage two years ago and our projections are on par. We don't need more capacity now but have plans to increase in another two years. With our OPEX storage, scalability is rated a nine 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

"I really like the architecture and I like the fact that on the storage side I can swap it out. Right now I'm on NetApp, I might go to Pure Storage. I have the flexibility. But as far as the equipment itself, the way it's all bundled together, from the UCS perspective, its rock solid."
"We found FlexPod to be innovative when it comes to compute, storage, and networking. We've taken advantage of their storage optimizations to obtain better use out of the space. We upgraded to All Flash FAS (AFF), which has provided a huge performance increase that we haven't barely scratched the surface of. We have plenty of overhead, so that's always nice when taking on tasks which might have otherwise taxed a smaller system."
"The tool provides a single point for storing applications and it increases the availability of them. It also has improved the way we handle applications within VMware."
"It makes us more lateral and faster to production."
"All of our main applications run on this solution, and it has done a stellar job."
"The most valuable features are the CVDs and the support behind it from both companies."
"Software flexibility. Everything is fully configurable. The reliability results from the design. Elements are well projected (disks, blade, network, etc.). No single point of failure is identifiable."
"It's amazingly scalable. It just works. It can expand to large MetroClusters and keep expanding."
"The solution has high IOPS and the I/O is important because it gives us more transactions per second."
"Replication and DR implementation became faster."
"The combination of Cisco's architecture and IBM's flash technology. Cisco provides FI technology which provides one simple architecture. IBM's flash technology is fast."
 

Cons

"There are times where we have had issues with technical support."
"I would like to see them reduce the complexity, that would be my number one request because. Right now, doing simple things is pretty complex. You have so many options. It might be better if it were more wizard-driven, as opposed to going through five hundred dials. It's not very easy or intuitive."
"Hyper-V is not as well supported by NetApp and Cisco as VMware is, which is something that should be improved."
"The integration between both companies, Cisco and NetApp, is very good but it still needs to be enhanced in terms of visibility and observability."
"We would like to have more monitoring and reporting, because today some of the reporting, and if you purchase it separately is expensive. We use OnCommand Unified Manager today, which is great, but we are looking for more of that."
"I'd like to see better integrations with some of the third-party tools, like Terraform. That would be good. We use Ansible to deploy and that's good, but it's slower than it needs to be."
"Our environment does not always require this solution, so we are not reaping the optimal ROI."
"The initial setup was complex. UCS is not the easiest thing to configure from the ground up. The networking pieces can get confusing, especially when you are talking about virtual segmentation. It is not as easy as other things now on the market, such as hyperconverged."
"Raw data mapping for storage should be a given option."
"The solution should improve deduplication to get a lot of savings."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The total cost of ownership with this solution is good."
"We fear high availability so we can't buy from different providers."
"We can just swap in new equipment or hardware as we need, which has probably saved us several weeks."
"We have absolutely seen ROI. We have saved between two to four million dollars on travel alone over the past 24 months."
"It is not cheap, but there is a return on investment in time saved and efficiency."
"Pricing is always tough. We need to get to a point where the customer's happy. Then, as partners, we are also happy."
"It has saved us hundreds of man-hours by using this converged infrastructure."
"I have saved time on new service deployments. I've done deployments in under a week, and if it's a cloud-based deployment, it's even faster."
"The solution is enterprise level so it is expensive."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Converged Infrastructure solutions are best for your needs.
851,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user244362 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 30, 2015
Nutanix vs. VMware EVO:RAIL vs. FlexPod
Originally posted at www.storagegaga.com/dont-get-too-drunk-on-hyper-converged/ I hate the fact that I am bursting the big bubble brewing about Hyper Convergence (HC). I urge all to look past the hot air and hype frenzy that are going on, because in the end, the HC platforms have to be aligned…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Manufacturing Company
20%
Computer Software Company
12%
Educational Organization
11%
Financial Services Firm
11%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about FlexPod?
The system is designed for easy scaling. Because we define everything clearly. So when we plug the system in, we apply the profile, and it scales easily.
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for FlexPod?
The pricing is not cheaper, but stability is more important for us now. We focus on business gains, not static numbers. Following XCS rules ensures a stable environment, which is crucial. For me, C...
What needs improvement with FlexPod?
FlexPod should focus more on automation. Integrating an automation tool with FlexPod would enable customers to leverage automation capabilities. More automation would be helpful. Currently, we cont...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Comparisons

No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

University of Sao Paulo, WD-40, The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group
Newhall Hospital, Medicat, JJ Haines, Sigmax
Find out what your peers are saying about FlexPod XCS vs. IBM VersaStack and other solutions. Updated: April 2025.
851,491 professionals have used our research since 2012.