We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and IBM PowerVM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Virtualization Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The restore function of the virtual server is valuable to me."
"The solution has an easy setup."
"The solution has good scalability."
"This solution is much easier to manage than a bare metal machine. It is so easy to manage something through the virtual machine."
"The most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly and easy to use."
"The virtualized applications and real time audition of the VMA is quite a good feature."
"One of the most valuable features of Hyper-V is ease to use."
"Hyper-V can expand storage. For instance, if I have a VM running on NetApp or another platform, I can expand the storage without interrupting operations. It is useful when I need to quickly allocate more storage without causing downtime or performing maintenance tasks."
"PowerVM's most valuable features include swift optimisation and real-time migration."
"A valuable feature of PowerVM is a feature that is used for higher availability plus stream for posting, which is very useful. There's a flash copy feature which we are using. PowerVM itself, I know, helps us to control and manage our Oracle licensing compliance, since it is our hardware partitioning. This is very important. If you use VMware, there will be a licensing issue. This PowerVM is a hardware partitioner, which is very important for license compliance. We are happy with this solution."
"The tool's most valuable feature is administration."
"It's in English, so its exceptional qualities make the control environment more flexible, easier, more stable, and easy to recover after issues."
"The feature that I like most is the versatility."
"PowerVM is perhaps the only virtualization platform that offers 99.999% availability."
"IBM PowerVM's most valuable feature is stability."
"We always recommend PowerVM to our customers; it is better than most solutions."
"Hyper-V's management platform falls short in terms of scalability, especially when handling multiple Hyper-V servers. VMware has a central console to pull in all your VM servers, so you can easily manage them all through one console. You can manage servers in Hyper-V's admin centers, but it's not as scalable. It's doable with a couple of Hyper-V servers, but it becomes harder to manage when you get over two or three Hyper-V servers."
"Enhanced visibility and reporting capabilities are desired for better insights and analysis."
"The corrupted volume is a problem."
"Hyper-V is hosted on OS but if your OS scratches you are in big trouble. In addition, if a host fails, automatically the machine and the virtual machine should boot from another source. Those type of features would benefit Hyper-V."
"Hyper-V isn't a lightweight solution like VMware. Management could be more straightforward. Even as far as disk management tools are concerned, it would be better if that could be made simpler. The same applies to performance."
"Hyper-V needs to improve its support."
"The initial setup was complex. It was nearly six years ago, but I remember it was complicated."
"Improvements could be made to the configuration of the solution."
"As understand it, IBM sells all its hardware to Lenovo, and only PCs servers are managed by IBM. It's uncertain how much longer IBM will continue in this way, especially with the current trend of transitioning from on-premises to cloud and hybrid models. The market is evolving. Given this market shift, it's essential to identify areas for improvement. IBM has introduced the PowerVM Series, including Linux, which is a positive step. However, customers are already moving towards x86 servers due to cost considerations. The cost of PowerVM compared to x86 servers appears to be a significant factor."
"The program has very limited solutions for the virtualization of containers"
"IBM should review the price of this solution in my opinion; it is too high."
"If it could actually virtualize the entire platform it might be better. If you're having more than one virtualization technology, maybe there's a way to actually have less - one technology to run the data center and maybe one special virtualization for power. If it integrated with other platforms more effectively it might be better."
"It is solely command-line based."
"PowerVM's platform build and performance could be improved."
"Any improvements that can be made in the interface will go a long way to helping us work better."
"The product's pricing could be less expensive compared to other competitors."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while IBM PowerVM is ranked 9th in Server Virtualization Software with 28 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while IBM PowerVM is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "It's a low-cost solution that enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM PowerVM writes "A stable system for high-end data processing with a great support structure". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, KVM and OpenVZ, whereas IBM PowerVM is most compared with VMware vSphere, KVM, Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI), Proxmox VE and Oracle VM VirtualBox. See our Hyper-V vs. IBM PowerVM 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.