We performed a comparison between Hyper V and Oracle VM Virtual Box based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results:
Our users like Hyper-V best. Many of our users are deeply committed to the Microsoft ecosystem, so it is an excellent seamless fit. Additionally, users find the failover feature very important and, as Hyper-V is not a heavy solution, it does not overuse resources. Hyper-V makes it easy to move any virtual machine across push servers without complication. Finally, Hyper-V is very easy to manage and offers great performance.
"Hyper-V's technical support is good - they're responsive and sort cases based on criticality and category, so they get dealt with quickly and by the correct team."
"The initial setup is not difficult at all. It is very easy."
"The most valuable feature is the high availability of the solution."
"II prefer customers to use Hyper-V because Hyper-V is mostly integrated with Microsoft solutions."
"It is very easy to install. It can be done in a day."
"I find that most of the competition is more or less the same. However, Hyper-V is, when you compare it to the older platforms like VMware, a little bit more advanced at this stage."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the storage virtualization."
"It is good for small installations."
"It is easy to use and does not require complex knowledge."
"The pause feature is valuable. I can pause, which is something that not all hypervisors allow. The snapshot feature is also valuable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that there is no cost because it is open source."
"I like that Oracle VM is safe and stable. It is also very easy to administer. For example, opening a VM or adding a host adapter is extremely easy."
"The flexibility and the closed platform, so it allows you to run in multiple platforms, Windows, Linux, Macintosh."
"Oracle VM Virtualbox is easy to use and does not require much training."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to copy bidirectionally between the desktop and the virtual machine."
"I like that it is free and runs on Linux/Ubuntu - I wouldn't use any other solution. I am able to perform small developing tests."
"There's room for improvement in Hyper-V. One area I've personally encountered issues with is live migration. Sometimes during live migrations, the process gets stuck in a certain state. This can happen with replication as well. It's not necessarily a major problem, but at times, the error messages aren't very informative. They don't clearly explain why the migration failed."
"Sometimes there's a bit of slowness in the VMs."
"The Hyper-V management console could be improved to make it easier. It should be a little bit more granular. Various virtual switches could also be improved to make virtual desk management slightly better. The replication could be improved slightly. The checkpoints or snapshots could be improved to make it a bit more transparent to the user."
"I would like Microsoft to put more effort into the Admin Center interface and make it much easier. It is customizable, but you have to be a PowerShell expert to customize these things. That is a limitation."
"Microsoft tech support is horrible."
"In terms of performance, when compared to VMware, it is much slower."
"We have our scientific network, and it's run off the university sever, and we need two servers to optimize our scientific work, such as the mathematics work. Then you have to work with Python and Java, and Microsoft isn't the best option for this kind of work"
"The product can be a bit difficult to use."
"The AI and the UI could be improved. The user interface is a little outdated and the AI is not very attractive."
"When I select the Ubuntu operating system from within the virtual machine, it sometimes hangs."
"This solution needs improvement with the business continuity planning, disaster and recovery management and using centralized data storage."
"Having live migrations to move a running server to other hardware would be great."
"They could improve the graphics functionality of the product."
"We're working with them to be able to allow the local USB ports to be ported over to the remote desktop, running VirtualBox."
"The solution is a bit less stable than I would like."
"The solution has to do a better job of promoting the product and its licensing capabilities."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Oracle VM VirtualBox is ranked 5th in Server Virtualization Software with 61 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Oracle VM VirtualBox is rated 8.2. 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 Oracle VM VirtualBox writes "The solution is versatile, simple to use, and stable". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas Oracle VM VirtualBox is most compared with Proxmox VE, KVM, Oracle VM, VMware Workstation and VMware vSphere. See our Hyper-V vs. Oracle VM VirtualBox 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.