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.
"I have found the GUI user-friendly and having the solution be a Windows application makes it familiar to users."
"We have a higher capacity server (specification wise) so there is no need to buy another additional hardware."
"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."
"I like that Hyper-V comes for free with Windows Server. You don't need to buy the license, and you only have to pay for the management aspect in System Center."
"The solution has good scalability."
"The initial setup of Hyper-V is far easier than VMware."
"Hyper-V provided freedom to spin up development and test environments. As projects were created, an environment could be created and applied."
"The virtual SAN feature is helpful."
"The solution saves cost."
"The features that I have found most valuable are the overall good ease of use and the good interface which makes it very easy to migrate from one bare metal to another. These are the two things which I like about it."
"I use the ESXi a lot for my users to create their own templates and control their own VMs without my interaction."
"You see more responsiveness, especially now with having the HTML5 client. It feels like a much snappier product."
"It cuts down on hardware costs by being able to virtualize multiple hardware and multiple machines on a single piece of hardware."
"It is a single pane of glass that lets you access your hosts and VMs."
"Scalability is the big advantage of it. The product itself allows us to scale on the fly as we need it, and plan for the future."
"The documentation is very good."
"There is a problem with high-availability if the load is too high."
"Hyper-V requires improvement with manageability."
"If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult."
"The backup site could be better. We used to face a lot of issues, and we are looking to solve that now. We are in the process of moving all the infrastructure to the cloud. It could also use more integration on the management part. We also need more integration on the monitoring sites."
"ometimes a server or machine shuts down and doesn't automatically restart."
"I think the console could use some improvement for the backups."
"It would be nice if they provided a free management console that we could use to manage all of the hosts for no additional fee."
"I would like Microsoft to put more effort into the Admin Center interface and make it much easier. It is customizable, but you have to be a PowerShell expert to customize these things. That is a limitation."
"The solution could benefit by expanding the CPUs and memory from different physical nodes."
"I met with the lead solutions architect for vSphere, and one of the things that I really kind of sat him down on was, "What's the deal between these Custom Attributes and these Tags? What are you trying to do with that?" He said, "So here's the deal. I know that they're halfway done and we have a vision of where they're all going, but we'll get it there." That that would be a great ability, to keep all that metadata about your virtual machines inside the solution and staying with the machines."
"Its performance is an issue in version 6.5, but with the inclusion of HTML files in vSphere version 6.7, the experience is seamless. In version 6.7, VMware has included the HTML file protocol for the web browser or web console, which has changed the console's response and improved the performance. We are using the trial version of vRealize Operations. It would be nice if some of those capabilities could be included in future versions of vSphere, not as a part of vRealize Operations, but in vSphere itself. It can provide some kind of forecast about your resource consumption based on the actual workload and modeling or testing scenarios. It can give you some advice or tips for the future growth of your infrastructure."
"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."
"It lacks a snapshot feature."
"The cost could always be lower."
"Where I think there is room for improvement is in the HTML5 interface in vCenter. What it lacks, for me, is integrating to VMware's other products, especially NSX."
"I would like them to move into having a containerized application to manage the vCenter."
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, KVM, Oracle VM VirtualBox and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas VMware vSphere is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM, VMware Workstation, 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.