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 solution's security is its most valuable aspect."
"Ability to move your virtual machines from one host to another."
"Citrix Hypervisor integrates easily and I can manage the infrastructure better. If I need to take a machine down to expand the hard drive, I do not have to physically be here. I do not need to order new equipment or new hard drives. I can shut it down, increase the drive space and bring it back up."
"Citrix Hypervisor is simple to use."
"The support for this solution is phenomenal."
"I've found the following features to be the most valuable: user personalization layer, app layering, provisioning, and notification services for integration between different domains."
"Citrix Hypervisor is quick to deploy and easy to manage."
"The onboarding process is pretty straightforward."
"The product gives us the flexibility to try different machines."
"I think VirtualBox has good stability because I use it in an environment with several resolutions."
"It is easy to use and does not require complex knowledge."
"This solution can be used on many different platforms including Windows and Linux."
"The installation is easy."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the ability to manage multiple operating systems through one application."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that there is no cost because it is open source."
"It can be useful to have a web management program because we have to install our client-server. We have to properly manage the host, if we had administration tools through a web interface it would be a benefit."
"The product could be faster and licensing options could be improved."
"The USB support for the virtual server needs improvement."
"Assigning the order of virtual server startup is not very easy and this can be improved."
"There are several areas that need improvement including the stability of the networking stack and networking management."
"The interface has to be updated."
"Integration with other vendors and other applications could be improved."
"The solution should be more flexible and allow for greater customization."
"The communications setup lags. It does not connect properly so the batching and networking is a bit slow."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"We're working with them to be able to allow the local USB ports to be ported over to the remote desktop, running VirtualBox."
"The installation is difficult and could be improved."
"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."
"The solution needs to improve the methods used for starting and stopping the machine."
"This should have better support for multiple network cards and some parts of the GUI should be improved."
"They could improve the graphics functionality of the product."
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.