We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and VMware VSphere based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: VMware VSphere is the winner in this comparison. It is easy to deploy, reliable, robust, and has excellent customer support. Hyper-V does come out on top in the pricing category, however.
"The initial setup of Hyper-V is far easier than VMware."
"It allowed us to add on servers and fix things in an expedient manner."
"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."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from how my company uses Hyper-V for replication."
"The simplicity and intuitiveness of the platform. It was a very simple adaptation, if you have any experience in virtualization."
"The virtualized applications and real time audition of the VMA is quite a good feature."
"This solution helps us with production of our office business needs."
"The simplicity and intuitiveness of the platform. It was a very simple adaptation, if you have any experience in virtualization."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to revert to previous snapshots during testing of various guest and application deployments."
"It is easy to manage the solution. It is scalable and very stable."
"Its stability and manageability are valuable."
"The stability of VMware vSphere is very good. It has high resiliency, it is one of the best solutions on the market."
"The solution is easy to use, user-friendly interface and has high availability features. When comparing it to other solutions it is more robust."
"The solution allows for very good virtualization."
"The tool makes virtualization easy. It was free, and we could profit from its GUI. It helps to manage VMs easily."
"The most important feature is the ability to balance the servers with Distributed Resource Scheduler (DRS). It is a very useful feature and should be mandatory for vSphere to have but it is only available in the enterprise edition. It should be available in all versions."
"Enhanced visibility and reporting capabilities are desired for better insights and analysis."
"I'd like to see better predictive diagnostics, so I know what's going on with the machines."
"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."
"It's not completely stable because your stack becomes bloated."
"There needs to be more functionality overall in the Hyper-V manager."
"I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved."
"We have our cluster connected to a Dell EMC VNX (SAN). The Hyper-V nodes are on Cisco UCS blades, and everything is interconnected via fiber. I attempted to use a virtual Fibre Channel connection to present a SAN volume to a VM but was not able to make that work."
"Hyper-V requires improvement with manageability."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"There is definitely room for improvement and that improvement should be in the licensing and the simplicity of procuring additional licenses or additional VMware products. Right now, it's very complex."
"The only way for it to be a complete product is if you integrate all the functionalities. Then you don't need any backup solution anymore and you can do it by yourself. Integration needs improvement. They should improve a lot of the functionality because normally it's half of a product. You're only protecting yourself against technical failures but not against any cyber threats or any other stuff."
"Reducing the cost of vSphere would be an improvement."
"In terms of what could be improved, we do face some bugs when cloning the virtual machine - it fails sometimes."
"It's an expensive solution."
"It is expensive."
"There are some limitations with the solution regarding migrating."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while VMware vSphere is ranked 2nd in Server Virtualization Software with 446 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while VMware vSphere is rated 8.8. 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 VMware vSphere writes "Offers good performance and is useful for banking systems". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas VMware vSphere is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware Workstation, Oracle VM, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization. See our Hyper-V 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.