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.
"This solution helps us with production of our office business needs."
"Hyper-V provided freedom to spin up development and test environments. As projects were created, an environment could be created and applied."
"I find the ease of use the most valuable asset of the solution."
"We appreciate how easy this solution is to implement on standalone severs."
"The solution is stable."
"Hyper-V's technical support is good - they're responsive and sort cases based on criticality and category, so they get dealt with quickly and by the correct team."
"It's good for what it does. If you have a small or medium-scale acclimatization, it's an excellent solution."
"The support with Microsoft is great."
"It has high clustering and availability features. These features are not found with other hypervisors."
"Tech support is very knowledgeable."
"It is a very stable solution. It performs well for our requirements. It has been running for a long time, so we are very knowledgeable about this solution. It is a very well-supported solution, and it is very flexible. The expansion of its functionality is dynamic."
"I find that the Virtual Center Management, iSCSI support, and VMotion hot migration are very beneficial."
"The solution saves cost."
"The GUI is very simple to use."
"We have seen an improvement in uptime. The whole hardware lifecycle process is easier."
"It's easy to use."
"Sometimes it is a mess, and it is getting hanged. It should be something that could be easily fixed. It made us have to deal with fixing the bugs."
"There are some storage problems which do occur in high load systems, especially SQL workloads."
"Storage via SMB3."
"Hyper-V could improve by making it easier to manage."
"If I want to create a cluster of around five to 10 physical servers Hyper-V does not get integrated with any kind of virtual sense, such as vSense."
"We have our cluster connected to a Dell EMC VNX (SAN). The Hyper-V nodes are on Cisco UCS blades, and everything is interconnected via fiber. I attempted to use a virtual Fibre Channel connection to present a SAN volume to a VM but was not able to make that work."
"The security part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The live migration feature needs improvement."
"The management of the product demonstration is weak."
"Archiving, exporting, and backing up need to be improved for this solution, because they're slower than expected."
"I feel that the scalability of the solution should be improved."
"VMware vSphere needs to increase the datastore volume."
"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."
"The biggest pain point is probably the firmware management of the underlying hardware. It could be a lot better."
"It could be more composable. At present, a fluid pool is not available to us. It would be great to have the flexibility."
"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 132 reviews while VMware vSphere is ranked 2nd in Server Virtualization Software with 443 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 "Allows for easy management of snapshots for virtual machines and good web console ". 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.