Home > HP Servers Vs. IBM Servers


HP Servers Vs. IBM Servers

     Both HP and IBM are two of the leading servers’ producers around the world. HP started producing servers in 1972 when they introduced the first computer for general purpose that was an advanced stack-based design for a business computing server. A few years before, specifically, in 1964, IBM has introduced IBM System/360 which is the world’s first family of computers that are fully compatible in terms of software instructions and hardware. Now days, those two companies are roughly competing in computing industry, especially, in servers industry. The conflict, customers have in which server has the more value, reflects the range for success of these companies. In comparison between those two companies, a sample has been taken from each one, and compared to the other. HP ProLiant ML150 G6 and IBM System x3400 M3 have many similarities in terms of specifications if not exactly similar to each other. Both of them use Intel Xeon 2 GHz processor, 2 GB of Ram, and about 8 TB of storage. The only difference is that IBM System x3400 M3 is priced $600 more than HP ProLiant ML150 G6 at $1,399. From that point of view we can come to a conclusion that price is not a factor in comparing between these two servers. Looking further beyond the price, a discussion of feature, reliability, market share and service is more suitable to decide which one is more valuable than the other.

     The features IBM provides are more advanced than HP. HP claims compatibly features in their products which is completely true. It’s true in the sense of if something got broken you can remove it easily, and at the same time it is compatible with many hardware upgrades available in the market. Although many users consider that a good feature of HP because of the saving of the hardware and the reuse of the existing hardware that you have invested in the infrastructure, that doesn’t satisfy many of business holders, that the cost of removing hardware and installing a new hardware is immeasurable. It ends up being more expensive in term of the time commitment and the downtime of the system. IBM provides products those can handle expanding without lifting behind by providing entire blade line, and entire chassis line that’s compatible with upgrades without incurring the cost of what HP provides.

     Most of the IT professionals say HP servers are “Better”. In a quick research around the web, there are lots of people values HP more than IBM. That is related to the fact that HP is about half cheaper than IBM, and “I have been using HP for 5 years, and never got broken.” By looking into the market share of IBM, you can see that IBM recent revenues from servers are much higher than HP. IBM was the top server vendor in 4th quarter of 2009 with 35.4 percent factory revenue share, outdistancing second place HP which held 30.5 percent. That contradicts what people are saying about IBM in the public forums, and experts’ discussions. By looking at the feature IBM provides, you can see that they provide many features for large businesses those who need a high level of scalability, and flexibility that they provide many services live more than the warranty itself.

     The comparison between IBM and HP goes beyond the pricing of each of them those IBM servers are priced double of HP’s and still gaining a higher market share. HP provides features those not suitable for large businesses those require lots of critical works on their servers, unlike IBM advanced features. What people in public are saying about HP, gives us a conclusion that HP is more suitable for small businesses that the servers can be stopped for a limited of time without incurring any notable expense.


Scroll to top