We performed a comparison between Hyper V and Oracle VM Virtual Box based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results:
Our users like Hyper-V best. Many of our users are deeply committed to the Microsoft ecosystem, so it is an excellent seamless fit. Additionally, users find the failover feature very important and, as Hyper-V is not a heavy solution, it does not overuse resources. Hyper-V makes it easy to move any virtual machine across push servers without complication. Finally, Hyper-V is very easy to manage and offers great performance.
"I think the cluster environment is a good feature of Hyper-V because, if something happens, then it will automatically move to some other mode. This is a great feature of the solution."
"This solution is much easier to manage than a bare metal machine. It is so easy to manage something through the virtual machine."
"One of the most valuable features of Hyper-V is ease to use."
"The solution is stable and the cost is reasonable."
"It makes it easier to deploy service. All service tends to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent."
"The most valuable feature is the high availability of the solution."
"The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to install."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"Oracle VM Virtualbox is easy to use and does not require much training."
"It is a stable product."
"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 flexibility and the closed platform, so it allows you to run in multiple platforms, Windows, Linux, Macintosh."
"The scalability of the solution is very good."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its stability."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the ability to manage multiple operating systems through one application."
"The versatility, simplicity, and stability of the product are it's most valuable features."
"The the only challenge for us was moving existing physical machines to virtual machines."
"There is a hard limitation of 20 gigs per file with Dropbox, so you've got to overcome that by chunking the zip files into something smaller and manageable."
"We've had many issues with Hyper-V's stability, including resource crunches and memory leakage."
"It would be better if it demanded less memory. Once you have allocated those memory spaces for the installed server, fewer resources are left to allocate for the Hyper-V virtual environment. That's the drawback with that. For example, once you install Windows 10, and let's say Windows 2019, Windows 2019 will take at least 10 GB of memory. If a customer has only 16 GB of RAM on the system, they think of installing Hyper-V. Because when you have windows 2019 or something else, they give two free Hyper-V virtual licenses. But we can't because there's not enough memory. We can, however, install this as a VMS. But this UI isn't that user-friendly for most customers. They like to have a user interface with VMI, and it's not easy when you install VMI. It would also be better if they can improve their core Hyper-V version to be a bit more familiar and user-friendly with its interface. I think it would be much easier. We had a few issues with the VM Hyper-V virtual network. Once you have such issues, it's very difficult to find out where they came from. They had such issues, and we had to resolve the system again. But other than that, if it's useful and keeps working nicely, it will work very nicely even if something happens. But it's very hectic and challenging to find out where it's happening. In the next release, it would be better to control this data store part in a manageable way. This is because once we install and create a Hyper-V machine, it goes everywhere. It would be better if it had a single location and a single folder with a heartbeat and virtual machine information. You can just go forward, and the data store and everything are going into one place like the C drive. But something always goes fast, or everything gets lost if the customer doesn't manually change the direction of where the virtual hard drive routes, the more serious the problem. It would be better if they could merge all that together. This includes the virtual machine and the virtual hard drive in the same folder when creating the virtual machine. I think that it would be much easier to manage and in case something happens. Technical support also could be better."
"Some of the interfaces need improvements, like the virtual switch or virtual VLAN interfaces."
"When it comes to Hyper-V the worst thing is it's based on the Windows operating system. For the installation of Hyper-V, you're supposed to install the right operating system. For me, it's strange."
"I would like Microsoft to put more effort into the Admin Center interface and make it much easier. It is customizable, but you have to be a PowerShell expert to customize these things. That is a limitation."
"Hyper-V needs to improve its support."
"Basically, the GUI and command-line interface need improvement."
"I find the solution to be incredibly unstable, constantly falling over and not working properly."
"It would be good if we could use Hyper-V Windows subsystems with Linux and VirtualBox on the same instance. Currently, to be able to use VirtualBox, we have to restart the machine into an instance of Windows where Hyper-V is disabled, which is understandably very inconvenient."
"The product lacks scalability since it is for desktops and not for servers."
"One valuable feature would be for it to work right the first time but it doesn't necessarily do that."
"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."
"The AI and the UI could be improved. The user interface is a little outdated and the AI is not very attractive."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Oracle VM VirtualBox is ranked 5th in Server Virtualization Software with 61 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Oracle VM VirtualBox is rated 8.2. 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 Oracle VM VirtualBox writes "The solution is versatile, simple to use, and stable". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas Oracle VM VirtualBox is most compared with Proxmox VE, KVM, Oracle VM, VMware Workstation and VMware vSphere. See our Hyper-V 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.