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 Hypervisor is quick to deploy and easy to manage."
"Citrix Hypervisor is simple to use."
"The most valuable features are being able to host many virtual machines and being able to patch machines."
"The ability to move a virtual machine while it is running is a big advantage."
"The feature I find most valuable, is its performance"
"This is a good product for virtualization and it is easy to use."
"The solution is easy to deploy. It's very easy to understand problems and read logs."
"The solution is extremely stable."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the ability to manage multiple operating systems through one application."
"This solution can be used on many different platforms including Windows and Linux."
"It's a pretty good product in terms of monitoring."
"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."
"The product gives us the flexibility to try different machines."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution were the support and performance of the product and the flexibility it gives you to work."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"Oracle VM VirtualBox is easy to use."
"The solution is too expensive and people are kind of moving away from Citrix. It's starting to become a problem. It is a primary reason that while we are rebuilding we're going to seek out open-source solutions."
"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."
"The built-in networking features are a little limited."
"The solution needs better backup facilities that are available for virtual machines to create servers on."
"The self-service user portal needs to be more granular and be more customizable."
"You need a licensed account to look up technical support."
"The solution should be more flexible and allow for greater customization."
"The solution is not flexible."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"The solution could be more user-friendly."
"The solution lacks some open source remote administration tools. The reload of individual virtual machine definitions through the vboxweb service (via its API) without restarting it and the access to shared storage (to use teleport functions) need to be improved."
"I think that this solution should be more user-friendly."
"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."
"It's not as robust as server platforms, nor does it need to be."
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, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere, 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.