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.
"It's good for what it does. If you have a small or medium-scale acclimatization, it's an excellent solution."
"Hyper-V integrates well with other Microsoft solutions."
"The simplicity and intuitiveness of the platform. It was a very simple adaptation, if you have any experience in virtualization."
"It allowed us to add on servers and fix things in an expedient manner."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The performance is very good."
"The virtual SAN feature is helpful."
"The solution is easy to configure."
"The redundancy, the failover, the ability to stay up and running 24/7, all the various tools that are in there, high-availability, DRS, are very critical to us."
"Having a virtualized infrastructure and being able to bring up Windows, Linux, and VMware within a virtualized environment brings more technology into the classroom. Without it, we couldn't do what we do."
"I like the capability of logging into one system, then being able to shift over to another system within that single pane of glass."
"I like stability and the organization of the different functions into the I#M feature which is also quite useful, quite stable."
"The emphasis isn't specifically on a particular feature, but rather on the ease of use. For instance, when building a test lab or setting up an entire environment from scratch, VMware products are notably more user-friendly compared to alternatives like Nutanix. I've had prior experience with Nutanix. From my personal perspective, I found it easier to adapt to using VMware than when I started using Dynamics. This ease of use is a strong point. It's largely about how straightforward it is to navigate through VMware's user interface. In contrast, with Nutanix, there's a need to delve into smaller configurations and navigate vendor-specific settings. VMware, on the other hand, offers a more accessible management page. This difference primarily centres around usability and the overall user-friendliness of the interface."
"The most valuable feature is vSAN, as it reduces the cost of SAN storage and maintenance."
"I definitely like the stability, performance and ease-of-use."
"The most valuable feature is its ability to revert to previous snapshots during testing of various guest and application deployments."
"The interface could be more user friendly. In addition, the documentation and security could use improvement."
"The technical support is good but it could improve by being faster."
"Disaster recovery capabilities are the primary choice for improvement."
"I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved."
"Enhanced visibility and reporting capabilities are desired for better insights and analysis."
"The management interface is in need of the biggest improvement."
"The live migration feature needs improvement."
"The management of Hyper-V could improve, there is a lot to improve in that area."
"We have had some problems setting up the monitoring with vSphere. The process could be simplified."
"Given that I've been using version seven, it seems that some of the bugs I faced during that version have already been addressed in subsequent updates. Although I haven't personally tested them yet, it appears that these issues have been resolved. In version seven, there was a problem with the network interface not responding due to certain configurations not being properly filtered. However, in version eight, this requirement has been minimized, so the mentioned bug is less likely to occur. Instead of solely addressing these fixes in newer versions, it might be beneficial for them to consider applying these improvements to the older versions as well. This approach could prevent users from feeling compelled to upgrade to version eight solely to avoid encountering the issue, and instead provide updates for version seven users."
"There should be a bit more flexibility in terms of the hardware we can use with the product."
"The Web Client is too slow."
"A fully **automatic** and lightweight Virtual Center. Another time this has a huge improvement in last releases. However, a more automatic and simple deployment is required."
"Support for the product is not good enough."
"It would be ideal if they could integrate billing software so that clients can customize it directly on the virtual machine."
"VMware has amped up how frequently they release new versions and that adds instability to a stable environment."
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.