We performed a comparison between Citrix Hypervisor and Oracle VM VirtualBox based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Virtualization Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup is easy."
"Citrix is easy to use and is stable."
"Installing Hypervisor is really simple. It's the simplest setup I've ever done before. We used a team to deploy it, and it doesn't take much time, like two or three hours tops."
"We find there are good central maintenance and central management panels."
"The price is the solution's most valuable feature."
"Citrix Hypervisor does a great job overall, such as the virtualization of the host. It's very easy to manage the virtual machine, to create, and configure high availability."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is very fast. It also works very well for physically small servers."
"The solution is extremely user friendly."
"Oracle VM Virtualbox is easy to use and does not require much training."
"This is a highly scalable solution."
"The flexibility as well as performance wise and as well as data volume, we have huge volume stored."
"The snapshot feature is very powerful; it protects us from disaster."
"I like that it is free and runs on Linux/Ubuntu - I wouldn't use any other solution. I am able to perform small developing tests."
"I think VirtualBox has good stability because I use it in an environment with several resolutions."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that there is no cost because it is open source."
"Oracle VM VirtualBox is easy to use."
"The solution needs better backup facilities that are available for virtual machines to create servers on."
"The USB support for the virtual server needs improvement."
"The licensing costs are too high on the solution. They should work to make the costs more reasonable."
"We'd like them to add more automation to the product."
"The solution would benefit from faster technical support."
"Citrix could provide more tools to help the client manage the solution because we need to build our own tools in some cases. Everything is available through PowerShell, but then you need to build your own scripts to do the more advanced work."
"You need a licensed account to look up technical support."
"The solution is only in English. It would be ideal if it was in Portuguese."
"It has some issues when you have some weird device drivers. For instance, when you have a weird sound driver working on your machine, and the VirtualBox needs to output the sound of the virtual machine into the sound driver of the physical machine, the bare metal, it doesn't work too well. If you tweak lots of drivers and play around with the different kinds of drivers and machines, you will probably break something. I have not played with it too much and maybe it already supports it, but it would probably be good to have the ability to use a container from the virtual machine environment instead of spinning off a complete virtual machine. There are other tools for that. On Linux, you have a DXE, LXC framework, and you have Docker as well. Docker is good because it is multi-platform, and you can run Docker on pretty much anything, even different processors, but it would be good if we had a VirtualBox running on it while spinning off containers instead of full virtual machines. The other thing that will become important, and I'm pretty sure that they are thinking about it as well is that there's this new hardware platform that Apple is releasing, which is an ARM-based new chip. So, VirtualBox will probably have to work on ARM-based CPUs as well."
"It should have the functionality where if I move the mouse away from one screen, the context changes automatically."
"Basically, the GUI and command-line interface need improvement."
"It's not as robust as server platforms, nor does it need to be."
"The solution is a bit less stable than I would like."
"The communications setup lags. It does not connect properly so the batching and networking is a bit slow."
"The solution needs to improve its flexibility. It's not as flexible as VMware."
"The solution could be more user-friendly."
Citrix Hypervisor is ranked 8th in Server Virtualization Software with 45 reviews while Oracle VM VirtualBox is ranked 5th in Server Virtualization Software with 61 reviews. Citrix Hypervisor is rated 8.2, while Oracle VM VirtualBox is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Citrix Hypervisor writes "Good features, fair pricing, and excellent reliability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle VM VirtualBox writes "The solution is versatile, simple to use, and stable". Citrix Hypervisor is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, Hyper-V, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas Oracle VM VirtualBox is most compared with Proxmox VE, KVM, Hyper-V, Oracle VM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization. See our Citrix Hypervisor vs. Oracle VM VirtualBox 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.
