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 virtualized applications and real time audition of the VMA is quite a good feature."
"It is a very stable product. We have not had any issues with Hyper-V crashing itself."
"The flexibility and API are the most valuable features. It helps us be able to integrate with other systems and then push data easily."
"It utilizes the hardware so there are multiple applications running on one hypervisor."
"I find the ease of use the most valuable asset of the solution."
"It is easy to use, and it is stable. It is a good solution."
"We chose this solution because of the pricing and the simplicity of the product."
"I like that Hyper-V is like a virtual environment. I like to use VMware because of the resource requirements. In Sri Lanka, most of the customers use the Hyper-V GUI. When installing the interface with the Windows version, we also install the Hyper-V feature on the server. This is because they require more features and memory. There are so many features that they have embedded in Hyper-V that are useful."
"vMotion radically changes the way we think about how we can operate a large infrastructure, and notably, in terms of proactive maintenance."
"The feature that I find very valuable is the ability to move images of virtual machines from different workspaces to other workspaces between different installations."
"It is very stable and scalable, and implementation is straightforward as well."
"The most valuable features of the solution are the overall virtualization technology and the new features that allow you to move servers from one system to another."
"I use customization to prevent any network and DNS collisions to the router."
"The most valuable features are the resilience of the solution and vMotion."
"I find that the Virtual Center Management, iSCSI support, and VMotion hot migration are very beneficial."
"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 management of Hyper-V could improve, there is a lot to improve in that area."
"The solution should be compatible with different systems."
"Failure capabilities are insufficient for disaster recovery."
"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."
"They can hot add NICs to the VMs. However, there is still not the ability to hot add virtual processors to running VMs."
"There needs to be more functionality overall in the Hyper-V manager."
"Many vendors, such as Cisco and HPE, are discontinuing support for Hyper-V as they believe it does not have a significant market share."
"I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved."
"As far as the web client goes, one of the frustrating things is that it's dependent on different browsers. One day it may work with only a given browser or there may be issues with Flash. So I look forward to being able to use the HTML 5 client."
"The Web Client is too slow."
"The initial setup is a bit complex."
"In the next release, I would love to have Java as a service, platform as a service, and container as a service."
"I'd like to see a little bit more integration for VDI. I think that Composer servers, security servers, broker servers with connections, I'm not sure they are necessary at this point. Perhaps they could have a lot of those functions baked directly into the hypervisor. It seems to me that if the hypervisor is scalable and flexible enough, that the processor and compute can handle all of that. Maybe we eliminate those other components for VDIs and have more mixed workloads: server workloads and desktop workloads all in the same hypervisor."
"As we introduce the DevOps culture, we need to make sure that the principles and tools used to support this approach can be easily integrated and interoperated with the vSphere environment with no (or less) redundancy in tools and functionality."
"There are certain tools the can't run in parallel and occasionally, in those instances, we have trouble migrating customers from one source to our data center."
"The setup is easy. However, the configuration expansion can be difficult. The full implementation took three to four days. This included the move from physical servers to virtual ones."
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.