We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Proxmox VE based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Hyper-V and Proxmox VE seem to have a more or less rating among users regarding ease of deployment, pricing, and service and support. In terms of features, users of Hyper-V weren’t satisfied with the recovery capabilities and the instability if the stack became bloated. On the other hand, users of Proxmox VE didn’t like the need to update manually but felt that the solution was young. Therefore, the bugs they experienced will hopefully have a solution with a future update.
"Hyper-V is much easier to deploy because Hyper-V is already installed inside Windows Server OS. You only need to turn on Hyper-V as a service, and then you can use it. The most convenient thing about Hyper-V is the operating system."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the storage virtualization."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"The installation was straightforward."
"Hyper-V helps to make a replica server between two machines. It is very easy to learn."
"We've probably seen a 50 percent speed increase on our SQL server. Hyper-V has also significantly reduced our downtimes with faster boot-up and reboot. If we have to reboot a server, there is maybe two or three minutes of downtime. When we were on a bare-metal server, it could be five to ten minutes due to the total boot time."
"It allows for quick deployment of servers and workloads."
"The solution is very powerful, easy to use, user-friendly, and integrates well with Windows. If you are looking for a hundred percent Microsoft environment it would be a good idea to go with Hyper-V. They work wonderfully together."
"KVM hypervisor is a valuable part of the solution."
"Proxmox VE has many containers. You need to download the image and do basic configuration, after which it is operational within a few minutes. The solution provides many containers that are light in use and don't use a lot of memory. You don't have to spend a lot of resources."
"The whole solution is good. It has good tools that help me in managing the servers. It is also stable."
"It fits in well with our organization. It works and does what it says it does."
"The initial setup was really straightforward and easy."
"The solution's compatibility is very good with multiple operating systems. The moving systems are very good and migration is excellent. These are the most valuable features for us."
"Proxmox VE is very lightweight, and it doesn't take a lot of memory on the device."
"The solution is open source and free to use."
"It would be better if it demanded less memory. Once you have allocated those memory spaces for the installed server, fewer resources are left to allocate for the Hyper-V virtual environment. That's the drawback with that. For example, once you install Windows 10, and let's say Windows 2019, Windows 2019 will take at least 10 GB of memory. If a customer has only 16 GB of RAM on the system, they think of installing Hyper-V. Because when you have windows 2019 or something else, they give two free Hyper-V virtual licenses. But we can't because there's not enough memory. We can, however, install this as a VMS. But this UI isn't that user-friendly for most customers. They like to have a user interface with VMI, and it's not easy when you install VMI. It would also be better if they can improve their core Hyper-V version to be a bit more familiar and user-friendly with its interface. I think it would be much easier. We had a few issues with the VM Hyper-V virtual network. Once you have such issues, it's very difficult to find out where they came from. They had such issues, and we had to resolve the system again. But other than that, if it's useful and keeps working nicely, it will work very nicely even if something happens. But it's very hectic and challenging to find out where it's happening. In the next release, it would be better to control this data store part in a manageable way. This is because once we install and create a Hyper-V machine, it goes everywhere. It would be better if it had a single location and a single folder with a heartbeat and virtual machine information. You can just go forward, and the data store and everything are going into one place like the C drive. But something always goes fast, or everything gets lost if the customer doesn't manually change the direction of where the virtual hard drive routes, the more serious the problem. It would be better if they could merge all that together. This includes the virtual machine and the virtual hard drive in the same folder when creating the virtual machine. I think that it would be much easier to manage and in case something happens. Technical support also could be better."
"They should include a few more hardware components for integration with servers."
"Microsoft increased the price for this solution when adding the Storage Spaces Direct feature."
"In my opinion, it would have been better to truncate the site-to-site replication."
"Disaster recovery capabilities are the primary choice for improvement."
"It needs to improve compatibility with third party software."
"An improvement I suggest is having more guest operating systems."
"Hyper-V systems need a lot of admin effort because security updates and monthly updates require rebooting after the update."
"The documentation in Proxmox VE could improve."
"Some of the more advanced features and options required for setup still need to use the console and hand edit config files."
"Separate physical network for Corosync/Heartbeat should be emphasized in the Quick Start or Getting Started documentation."
"The management can be better. It's not like VMware where you can get all clusters on a single dashboard. In VMware, you can literally see all the VMs running in one cluster regardless of the host."
"If this solution could import directly from OVS format then it would make migration much easier."
"I can't speak to any improvements. It is not lacking features."
"Currently, there are several features inaccessible through the API, necessitating the use of either the WebUI or the command line interface."
"We find it difficult to find the root cause of the issues."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Proxmox VE is ranked 1st in Server Virtualization Software with 58 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Proxmox VE is rated 8.6. 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 Proxmox VE writes "Easy to use and supports multi-monitors on multiple VMs in KVM". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Oracle VM VirtualBox, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas Proxmox VE is most compared with VMware vSphere, Oracle VM VirtualBox, KVM, Nutanix AHV Virtualization and Citrix Hypervisor. See our Hyper-V vs. Proxmox VE 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.
