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."Citrix is easy to use and is stable."
"What I like the most is the support of the GPU Graphics and the VM Live migration."
"The solution integrates well with other solutions, which makes it really strong as a primary solution to deploy."
"The most valuable features are being able to host many virtual machines and being able to patch machines."
"The solution's security is its most valuable aspect."
"This is a good product for virtualization and it is easy to use."
"The support for this solution is phenomenal."
"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."
"I like that it has a snapshot feature."
"VirtualBox provides an isolated, consistent environment"
"Oracle VM VirtualBox is easy to use."
"The installation is easy."
"The scalability of the solution is very good."
"This is a highly scalable solution."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its stability."
"Oracle VM VirtualBox has a platform where the support team responds to frequently asked questions by its users. Every time I have had issues with Oracle VM VirtualBox, I always get a solution from Oracle's online platform or GitHub."
"Citrix Hypervisor is expensive if you get it as a stand-alone product, so this is one area for improvement. Its price could be cheaper. We also found other areas for improvement in Citrix Hypervisor, for example, we can't use SCIM provisioning, and there are limitations to the size of the HDD. Another area for improvement is the pass-through storage, in particular the removable storage, because that also has limitations where you can't connect to the drive if it is more than one TB."
"Overall, I can't think of a feature that is lacking. We've been pretty satisfied overall."
"Citrix is not investing in the virtual surroundings."
"You need a licensed account to look up technical support."
"The manageability of the solution needs improvement. It's an extremely bad product to handle."
"The self-service user portal needs to be more granular and be more customizable."
"Network management needs improvement because it is not very stable."
"The built-in networking features are a little limited."
"The solution is a bit less stable than I would like."
"They could improve the graphics functionality of the product."
"The solution should work to simplify the system. However, it should be flexible enough to allow for special cases."
"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."
"One valuable feature would be for it to work right the first time but it doesn't necessarily do that."
"It could improve slightly with enhanced reporting capabilities that show the current status of the network."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"The solution needs to improve its flexibility. It's not as flexible as VMware."
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.