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.
"We can perform maintenance on equipment during the day because we can live migrate all of the machines from one server to another."
"The product is easy to manage. It improves our VM management."
"The initial setup of Hyper-V is far easier than VMware."
"It utilizes the hardware so there are multiple applications running on one hypervisor."
"It makes it easier to deploy service. All service tends to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent."
"There are some products that you can mount over Hyper-V that provide the features that, in today's Hyper-V, are not present."
"One of the most valuable features of Hyper-V is ease to use."
"I like the functionality."
"I think that the solution is perfect. It's the best on the market."
"The benefit of the solution is that you can create template-based servers within minutes. If you were to use a physical server, it would probably take several hours, if not a whole day, to get everything set up the way you need."
"We have the possibility to move workloads to different locations."
"I use the ESXi a lot for my users to create their own templates and control their own VMs without my interaction."
"It's a very useful solution. It's easy to set up, and it's pretty stable."
"I have found the Storage vMotion feature to be the most valuable."
"It's much more stable than other products. It is scalable and easy to implement as well."
"It is very easy to use and very stable."
"The only issues we have had recently are with Windows updates that are built into the Windows server with Hyper-V."
"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."
"They can hot add NICs to the VMs. However, there is still not the ability to hot add virtual processors to running VMs."
"An improvement I suggest is having more guest operating systems."
"In general, based on my little experience with Hyper-V, I see a lot of obstacles. I think it falls behind the other competitors."
"The initial setup was complex. It was nearly six years ago, but I remember it was complicated."
"I think the console could use some improvement for the backups."
"Hyper-V requires improvement with manageability."
"We are provided with a mini dashboard that has been improved in the latest version but it still could be better. The monitoring is now available on the vCenter dashboard and the vROps has been added to the basic version that had to be purchased separately before. A complete dashboard has always been provided with some competitors, such as Nutanix."
"In the last couple of years, the breaking apart of specific added benefits and charging license upcharges for them. That would be the only negative thing that I have to say: As a large consumer of the Hypervisor, we have a hard time justifying the cost of utilizing the extra products, especially when it's a couple of grand here and there, a couple of hundred dollars here and there. It's hard for an IT administrator or an architect to sell to upper management. When they're seeing so much ROI from the Hypervisor, it's hard to show them that there is extra value in the additional products that can be tied on top."
"Integration with different platforms could be improved."
"There was a time we lost the password for the ESXi and we had to do a hardware reset. At this point, we had to fill up the ESXi from the bottom up. I am not sure if there was another solution to this problem but it took a long time."
"OS templates should be readily available, so there is no need to get an OS separately. Only the activation part should be different, which is not presently available due to the need to get the OS from a different location, then create VMs."
"In addition, I think they should come up with a backup feature which is more product enrichment-based. It should be a full-fledged backup solution. It just is not there right now."
"Stability-wise, there are some minor issues."
"We stopped using a lot of cloud services. However, I see that VMware has integrated with Amazon Cloud. We will now to have to move everything to the cloud."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 30 reviews while VMware vSphere is ranked 2nd in Server Virtualization Software with 14 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while VMware vSphere is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "Enables the creation of secure, isolated virtual environments for running applications and allows seamless transfer of virtual machines between nodes without impacting users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware vSphere writes "Offers a suite of software components for virtualization including ESXi, vCenter Server, and other software". 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.