We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Nutanix AHV Virtualization based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Hyper-V came out on top in this comparison. It is easy to manage and customize, and has very low resource usage, resulting in very little downtime. It is robust, stable, and provides many desired next-generation features. As a Microsoft product, it integrates well with many solutions in the Microsoft ecosystem, in addition to many other popular third-party solutions.
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the storage virtualization."
"The virtual SAN feature is helpful."
"We've probably seen a 50 percent speed increase on our SQL server. Hyper-V has also significantly reduced our downtimes with faster boot-up and reboot. If we have to reboot a server, there is maybe two or three minutes of downtime. When we were on a bare-metal server, it could be five to ten minutes due to the total boot time."
"Hyper-V deployment is very user-friendly. It supports partial scripting and offers a UI for a smooth experience. There's also PowerShell scripting available for advanced users."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to install."
"The solution is easy to configure."
"Using cluster with Hyper-V had a major impact on our protection environment. So all applications were virtualized using Hyper-V."
"Nutanix is good for new implementations on the VM side. It's very good for disaster recovery and final storage."
"We use Prism Central, the centralized management console for AHV clusters. It allows administrators to manage multiple clusters from a single interface and provides a unified view of the entire infrastructure."
"With AHV, you can run micro-segmentation, which is, on the network security level, to have network virtualization across clouds."
"The entirety of the infrastructure resides in the same product, which makes it easy to troubleshoot and investigate problems."
"Nutanix AHV Virtualization has good performance and can be used for backup and disaster."
"Nutanix's customer support is good, one of its biggest selling points."
"The solution is user-friendly and provides good virtual machine backups. The user interface gets updated when there is a new release."
"It is a stable solution. I haven't faced stability issues in the solution."
"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."
"The only issues we have had recently are with Windows updates that are built into the Windows server with Hyper-V."
"Hyper-V could improve the management tools."
"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."
"An improvement I suggest is having more guest operating systems."
"Traditional architecture, such as converged infrastructure, should be done away with"
"In an upcoming release, they can improve by having better cloud integration. We are all moving towards the clouds and the integration is only through the Azure Stack, there should be tools built in to move the VMs natively to the cloud and infrastructure. Additionally, they could provide some form of multi-cloud integration."
"When one server or one virtual machine fails, or one is turned off, the virtualization stops, and we have to initiate again with human intervention."
"Nutanix’s support team is not very efficient compared to others."
"Some companies do not support AHV."
"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."
"They need to work on the deployment of virtual machines. They need to streamline the process of templates and deploying virtual machines."
"The technical support for this solution needs to be improved in terms of response time."
"The solution is very expensive."
"The software based controller has high consumption. This could be improved."
"Honestly, there's a lot to work on the product, especially for someone like me who has worked on VMware. VMware offers a significant level of customization when configuring virtual machines, and that level of detail is not as pronounced on Nutanix AHV Virtualization."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 48 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Nutanix AHV Virtualization 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 Nutanix AHV Virtualization writes "Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, KVM and Oracle VM VirtualBox, whereas Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, KVM, Citrix Hypervisor and RHEV. See our Hyper-V vs. Nutanix AHV Virtualization 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.