We performed a comparison between Nutanix AHV and VMware vSphere based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Nutanix AHV and VMware vSphere have a similar user rating regarding ease of deployment and service and support. If pricing is a factor, Nutanix AHV had a better rating. Regarding features, Nutanix AHV users felt there were software compatibility limitations, whereas VMware vSphere users felt the solution wasn’t so user-friendly.
"Nutanix AHV works really well. It's much easier to administer and manage than VMware. Since we're not a large IT department within the finance sector, our team is relatively small. We don't have a huge team of IT professionals to manage all the other systems."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between storage and compute services."
"The interface is very good, and quite user-friendly."
"You don't need any other instruments for control, AHV. You only need to look at the prism to control all infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature is manageability."
"Nutanix AHV Virtualization has good performance and can be used for backup and disaster."
"The feature that has had the most impact is data locality. That is a feature that makes Nutanix different from other hypervisors. It helps us to get application performance that is probably double what we got with the legacy, three-tier architecture."
"The dashboard of the solution is one of its strongest points."
"We have seen a tremendous performance boost. From when we started this VMware engagement in 2016 until now, we have seen around a 70 percent performance boost. This is a good number."
"The solution is stable."
"Overall, it is a pretty good solution. We do not have to worry about upgrading the versions that people use for our in-house software. We just create ThinApps, and as soon as they log in, they always get the upgraded version. This part really works well for us."
"The solution's flexibility allows us to implement it widely."
"It is a very mature solution that is easy to use and flexible."
"The ability of a running VM to be quickly relocated to another hypervisor or launched at another site via replicated storage greatly reduces downtime."
"It is very versatile. All features are beneficial and very good, especially DRS and resource pooling."
"The most valuable features are stability and support."
"The licensing costs are a little bit expensive."
"The price of Nutanix AHV Virtualization could improve."
"I would like to see more automation of Day One operations, such as DRS, and HA."
"There is room for improvement in the USB mapping."
"It worked well in the beginning but after using it for some time, we found some limitations in terms of compatibility with other software."
"To face no complications in our company, we had to switch off virtual machines one after the other before heading to Nutanix platform and going to edge services to switch off and turn off everything, making it a challenging process for me."
"If we have to opt for a high level of capacity planning and need more analytics—like deciding on new purchases or budgeting, or if we need additional resources in the near future—we need to pay for Prism Central. I would suggest that Nutanix improve a bit on the analytics part of Prism Element so we can calculate those kinds of things within that flavor."
"I would like to see better decompression or degrouping of the VMs so that we can use a single number of SQLs with two servers. We don't need a huge number of DXSPs."
"Sometimes it's impossible to prevent problems from happening. With vSphere, you never know where the problem is going to come from, but you will always know that there is a problem. This is the problem."
"The solution could be more stable."
"The licensing costs for the solution are quite high."
"Its price can be better. It is very expensive."
"The cost can be better."
"I'd like to see a little bit more integration for VDI. I think that Composer servers, security servers, broker servers with connections, I'm not sure they are necessary at this point. Perhaps they could have a lot of those functions baked directly into the hypervisor. It seems to me that if the hypervisor is scalable and flexible enough, that the processor and compute can handle all of that. Maybe we eliminate those other components for VDIs and have more mixed workloads: server workloads and desktop workloads all in the same hypervisor."
"They have multiple components required for the setup. It would be better to integrate it into one solution, especially for small business companies."
"It's inherently complex. Operating a large virtual infrastructure is not an easy task for anyone."
Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 45 reviews while VMware vSphere is ranked 2nd in Server Virtualization Software with 446 reviews. Nutanix AHV Virtualization is rated 8.6, while VMware vSphere is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Nutanix AHV Virtualization writes "Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware vSphere writes "Offers good performance and is useful for banking systems". Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, KVM, Citrix Hypervisor and RHEV, whereas VMware vSphere is most compared with Hyper-V, Proxmox VE, Oracle VM, VMware Workstation and RHEV. See our Nutanix AHV Virtualization vs. VMware vSphere report.
See our list of best Server Virtualization Software vendors.
We monitor all Server Virtualization Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.