We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."We have a higher capacity server (specification wise) so there is no need to buy another additional hardware."
"We've probably seen a 50 percent speed increase on our SQL server. Hyper-V has also significantly reduced our downtimes with faster boot-up and reboot. If we have to reboot a server, there is maybe two or three minutes of downtime. When we were on a bare-metal server, it could be five to ten minutes due to the total boot time."
"I like that it's easy to use."
"The virtual SAN feature is helpful."
"The ease of use of Hyper-V is the most valuable feature."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"We appreciate how easy this solution is to implement on standalone severs."
"With each update, the security of this solution just gets better and better. It is very stable."
"Some of the most valuable features of Nutanix Acropolis are that it's free from Nutanix and it's very stable."
"Single-click upgrades are the most valuable feature. In the sector in which we work, it is tough to have downtime and arrange firmware upgrades."
"The solution remains stable across versions."
"It offers very useful data protection."
"The interface is very good. Before we used this solution, we had separate storage and switches, but with the hyper convert, it's all in one."
"The solution is easy to use and the pricing is affordable."
"The administration console, automation, and the first cluster are all valuable features."
"Most beneficial feature is simplicity, ease of use."
"The security part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"The biggest problem with Hyper-V is that the virtual machines are mostly running on top of the Windows Server, so we often need to reboot the machine and virtual machines when updating the host level. That's why we prefer VMware. It's much easier to patch the host. Also, Hyper-V has security vulnerabilities. It's easy to attack and compromise the host."
"Hyper-V could benefit with improvements to their management interface."
"The only negative thing I heard was that the baseline price is very, very attractive relative to VMware, however, the vCenter counterpart, the thing that brings it all together, is quite pricey."
"It needs to improve compatibility with third party software."
"In terms of performance, when compared to VMware, it is much slower."
"There are bugs, and this should be resolved by Microsoft."
"The solution is heavily reliant on Microsoft's active directory for authentication, for coordination between nodes. Therefore, it inherits all the issues that are within the active directory."
"They should support more VM, which is not currently supported."
"The software-defined networking should be improved. It is quite substandard as compared to the VMware variant. The software-defined networking is quite limited, and we usually use other products to do that. We're aware that Nutanix is working on that and will be coming out with better solutions, and we can't wait because to do a fully software-defined architecture, the abstraction layer needs not only software-defined storage, which you have, but also the software-defined networking piece."
"As of now, Acropolis and VMware cannot talk to each other. Until we have some kind of interface, it would be much better for Nutanix if they built an interface which can talk. Otherwise, if I have a VMware stack and I already have a Nutanix stack, I create containers, I create clusters on VMware, I create clusters on Nutanix. All of these clusters cannot talk to each other. Then it has to be then subverted as a parallel execution. What happens then is that I have to work in two different environments within my data center. Practically, they are two different data centers but physically and logically, they are one. If they cannot talk to each other that creates a lot of issues. That is something which Nutanix has to develop because for Nutanix it is very simple. For example, Oracle is using a function called GoldenGate. They have a feature called GoldenGate which allows them to talk to various different environments which must really help."
"Nutanix has a complex infrastructure, we have customers that consider VMware instead. Additionally, the performance could be better."
"There is a lot of functionality in Prism Central, but sometimes you want to see those features in Prism Element."
"There is a feature that exists used for disaster recovery, but it requires an extra license. It should be included with the regular normal standard license."
"The one note of improvement I have for Nutanix is that the installation should be easier."
"In the future, I would like to see integration with external storage using the fiber channel"
More Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) is ranked 3rd in HCI with 194 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) is rated 8.6. 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 Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) writes "A powerful solution with easy deployment, upgrades, and management". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, KVM and Oracle VM, whereas Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) is most compared with VMware vSAN, VxRail, HPE SimpliVity, VMware vSphere and Proxmox VE.
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.
