We performed a comparison between Oracle Linux and Windows Server based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Oracle Linux seems to be the superior solution. Our reviewers find that the questions concerning Windows Server's stability and scalability as well as its high price make Oracle HCM Cloud the better choice.
"The solution's technical support team answers all our queries."
"There is full compatibility with RedHat-based operating systems, in particular Centos, which we widely deployed before Oracle Linux (OL)."
"I feel the stability to be the solution's best feature."
"Oracle Linux is a secure solution."
"The main business advantage is maintaining compliance with Oracle licensing, avoiding non-compliance issues, and license revisions."
"Once installed, the product is good, I like it. The core of the software is really good."
"I like the product's stable distribution. The tool offered us very good experience since it was very stable."
"One of the main features of this solution is it is secure."
"The solution is very easy to use and very easy to onboard."
"The tool is easy to access and manage. You don't have to take any backups."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is Hyper-V Live Migration for Critical applications."
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"The initial setup is very simple."
"I like that it's simple and the users are happy."
"The most valuable features are the file transfer protocol (FTP) and the secure file transfer protocol (SFTP)."
"We like the ease of use, stability and performance of Windows Server."
"The security could improve in the solution."
"The licensing price could be better."
"They should increase security."
"The deployment is a bit complex."
"Oracle Linux, needs to support more packages."
"The security and integration could improve."
"The GUI could be made more attractive."
"The support process is time-consuming as it involves several steps."
"The user interface needs improvement."
"Its updates need to be faster, so that's an area for improvement."
"Right now what is needed on the server-side is an easier release process. Every year or every third year they are releasing a newer version and it could go smoother."
"The solution is not easy to use."
"I would definitely like to see bolting monitoring tools. To monitor the server you usually have to install third party tools. I would like to be less reliant on third-party tools. They always create some sort of security issue regarding ports that need to be opened, that type of thing. Windows Server has internally monitorable software but remote monitoring software would be a great add-on."
"The initial setup could be simplified."
"They should release a command-line version of the solution."
"For countries in the Middle East and Africa, their pricing is a little bit high."
Oracle Linux is ranked 3rd in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 108 reviews while Windows Server is ranked 4th in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 180 reviews. Oracle Linux is rated 8.4, while Windows Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Oracle Linux writes "The operational system is the best and is packed with free features like CapsLive". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Windows Server writes "Easy to setup, stable and caters to my wide range of use cases but lacks user-friendly interface". Oracle Linux is most compared with Ubuntu Linux, CentOS, Rocky Linux, Oracle Solaris and SUSE Linux Enterprise, whereas Windows Server is most compared with Ubuntu Linux, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), Windows 10, Windows 11 and CentOS. See our Oracle Linux vs. Windows Server report.
See our list of best Operating Systems (OS) for Business vendors.
We monitor all Operating Systems (OS) for Business 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.