We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Proxmox VE based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Hyper-V and Proxmox VE seem to have a more or less rating among users regarding ease of deployment, pricing, and service and support. In terms of features, users of Hyper-V weren’t satisfied with the recovery capabilities and the instability if the stack became bloated. On the other hand, users of Proxmox VE didn’t like the need to update manually but felt that the solution was young. Therefore, the bugs they experienced will hopefully have a solution with a future update.
"Hyper-V provided freedom to spin up development and test environments. As projects were created, an environment could be created and applied."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to install."
"The initial setup is easy."
"It is easy to use, and it is stable. It is a good solution."
"The Failover Clustering feature allows us to be able to make our most critical workload highly available."
"The initial setup is simple. There's not much to do. We input one command or just one or two clicks on the UI. Initial setup in the Windows environment for any software is not that difficult."
"This solution is much easier to manage than a bare metal machine. It is so easy to manage something through the virtual machine."
"The initial setup is not difficult at all. It is very easy."
"Less infrastructure required; simple to use."
"The most valuable feature of Proxmox VE is the linked clone."
"Ease of use, HA, internal 100gbps Virtio network, built-in backup (don't pay $1200 Veeam licence), support for multi-monitors on multiple VMs in KVM, no need to RDP in the VMs to do your stuff (Win, Linux and Mac with SPICE and using 6 screens here (11520*2160)."
"The whole solution is good. It has good tools that help me in managing the servers. It is also stable."
"The setup is very easy."
"Proxmox VE has many containers. You need to download the image and do basic configuration, after which it is operational within a few minutes. The solution provides many containers that are light in use and don't use a lot of memory. You don't have to spend a lot of resources."
"That the product is free and still has all the features you expect is a huge benefit."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of deployment."
"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."
"There is a hard limitation of 20 gigs per file with Dropbox, so you've got to overcome that by chunking the zip files into something smaller and manageable."
"The solution is lacking in numerous features and lacks flexibility."
"If you have a bigger implementation, you need more tools to coexist with many, many features that are not present in the base Hyper-V."
"Hyper-V could improve the management tools."
"The solution is heavily reliant on Microsoft's active directory for authentication, for coordination between nodes. Therefore, it inherits all the issues that are within the active directory."
"The product can be a bit difficult to use."
"I also use VMware which I find to be more scalable and stable overall."
"The only disadvantage of Proxmox VE is that it is a young solution so it does have some bugs."
"Some of the more advanced features and options required for setup still need to use the console and hand edit config files."
"The tool needs to add a lot of containers."
"Proxmox VE doesn't offer a good interface for monitoring."
"Backup and recovery could be better. It's a bit problematic. If you're not well-versed with Linux, it tends to be a bit of a challenge when setting up and recovering. It's not really GUI-based, and if you're not a good Linux user, it becomes a bit difficult. In the next release, I would like to have something like Hyper-V's Data Protection Manager, where you could do an offsite backup and keep a copy. I haven't seen that incorporated yet, but I'm sure they will do that."
"Its user interface can be improved. In the version that I am using, not all functions can be performed by using the UI. There can be some improvement on that. I'm assuming that it has already been improved in the latest version."
"It could have more security updates such as when a new threat is coming into market."
"My impression is that currently, this solution is not stable even after multiple versions of improvements."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Proxmox VE is ranked 1st in Server Virtualization Software with 58 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Proxmox VE is rated 8.6. 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 Proxmox VE writes "Easy to use and supports multi-monitors on multiple VMs in KVM". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, KVM, Oracle VM VirtualBox and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas Proxmox VE is most compared with VMware vSphere, Oracle VM VirtualBox, KVM, Nutanix AHV Virtualization and Citrix Hypervisor. See our Hyper-V vs. Proxmox VE 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.