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.
"The initial setup is simple. There's not much to do. We input one command or just one or two clicks on the UI. Initial setup in the Windows environment for any software is not that difficult."
"The Failover Clustering feature allows us to be able to make our most critical workload highly available."
"The setup was straightforward and easy for our company. The deployment was fast."
"It is a great advantage for any company that is using a Microsoft Windows server."
"The virtualized applications and real time audition of the VMA is quite a good feature."
"This solution helps us with production of our office business needs."
"The implementation process is simple."
"Hyper-V deployment is very user-friendly. It supports partial scripting and offers a UI for a smooth experience. There's also PowerShell scripting available for advanced users."
"It's very transparent and independent."
"The ability to create or clone a virtual environment in a short period of time for testing is most valuable."
"The initial setup is very easy and takes half an hour to complete."
"The solution has high availability."
"We have the possibility to move workloads to different locations."
"The solution is user-friendly. It is easy to convert, create, and manage systems."
"The features in VMware vSphere data recovery are excellent. Sometimes I've deleted an entire server before and was able to recover the deleted VM. I just used some command line tools and I was able to restore the deleted VM."
"It affords us different views of the VMs created by vSphere so we can control them better."
"One of the network problems I face is I cannot introduce other security layers on top of Hyper-V as you can in VMware. When it comes to the network the VMware is more flexible than Hyper-V."
"SCVMM needs to be more user-friendly. Without SCVMM, automating is not easy to use and we look forward to the upcoming versions of SCVMM becoming simpler and more admin friendly."
"The solution should improve its native integration with other public cloud solutions."
"In terms of performance, when compared to VMware, it is much slower."
"The Hyper-V management console could be improved to make it easier. It should be a little bit more granular. Various virtual switches could also be improved to make virtual desk management slightly better. The replication could be improved slightly. The checkpoints or snapshots could be improved to make it a bit more transparent to the user."
"The management interface is in need of the biggest improvement."
"There's room for improvement in Hyper-V. One area I've personally encountered issues with is live migration. Sometimes during live migrations, the process gets stuck in a certain state. This can happen with replication as well. It's not necessarily a major problem, but at times, the error messages aren't very informative. They don't clearly explain why the migration failed."
"The initial setup was complex. It was nearly six years ago, but I remember it was complicated."
"The solution could benefit by expanding the CPUs and memory from different physical nodes."
"Higher cost than other similar solutions."
"The price could be better. The licensing is definitely expensive and tech support is sometimes frustrating."
"The monitoring is not good in vSphere, many times you have latency or you cannot find what you want. The events should be improved."
"The support for the latest version could be improved."
"My biggest suggestion would be some kind of a mechanism - and it's almost an AI-type thing, a Siri/Cortana - for where to find how to do certain things. If there was the ability to just type in a basic question and say, "How do I change the VM settings for this?" and it could bring me right there, that would be really awesome."
"Its cost needs to be improved. It is very expensive as compared to other solutions."
"It could be more composable. At present, a fluid pool is not available to us. It would be great to have the flexibility."
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.