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 allowed us to add on servers and fix things in an expedient manner."
"The initial setup of Hyper-V is far easier than VMware."
"It makes it easier to deploy service. All service tends to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent."
"There are some products that you can mount over Hyper-V that provide the features that, in today's Hyper-V, are not present."
"This is the best solution for customers with budget constraints."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"I appreciate its stability and user-friendly management interface."
"The solution has good scalability."
"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."
"I use customization to prevent any network and DNS collisions to the router."
"It's much more stable than other products. It is scalable and easy to implement as well."
"I like the capability of vMotion, DRS, high availability, and resource distribution."
"The initial setup is very easy and takes half an hour to complete."
"It is very easy to use and very stable."
"The most valuable features are the seamless HA with vMotion and being able to run vCenters in HA mode."
"VMware vSphere is a very stable product."
"We've had many issues with Hyper-V's stability, including resource crunches and memory leakage."
"There is a hard limitation of 20 gigs per file with Dropbox, so you've got to overcome that by chunking the zip files into something smaller and manageable."
"They can hot add NICs to the VMs. However, there is still not the ability to hot add virtual processors to running VMs."
"If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult."
"The corrupted volume is a problem."
"Hyper-V's management platform falls short in terms of scalability, especially when handling multiple Hyper-V servers. VMware has a central console to pull in all your VM servers, so you can easily manage them all through one console. You can manage servers in Hyper-V's admin centers, but it's not as scalable. It's doable with a couple of Hyper-V servers, but it becomes harder to manage when you get over two or three Hyper-V servers."
"There are bugs, and this should be resolved by Microsoft."
"I'd like to see better predictive diagnostics, so I know what's going on with the machines."
"They can maybe review its price. They can also consider offering a free public version for development for a certain number of users."
"Archiving, exporting, and backing up need to be improved for this solution, because they're slower than expected."
"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."
"When it comes to cross-regional (e.g., someone in the US managing the China vSphere implementations), it can be a somewhat slow. I would recommend increasing the speed. While there has already been improvement there, I would like to see more."
"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."
"It is expensive. They can improve the licensing cost for Cloud Director. They can also improve the integration with other applications and the metering feature, which is currently not flexible."
"As far as the web client goes, one of the frustrating things is that it's dependent on different browsers. One day it may work with only a given browser or there may be issues with Flash. So I look forward to being able to use the HTML 5 client."
"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."
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.