We performed a comparison between Nutanix AHV and VMware vSphere based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Nutanix AHV and VMware vSphere have a similar user rating regarding ease of deployment and service and support. If pricing is a factor, Nutanix AHV had a better rating. Regarding features, Nutanix AHV users felt there were software compatibility limitations, whereas VMware vSphere users felt the solution wasn’t so user-friendly.
"This solution is very stable and it has been running for the last three months, with no issues."
"The most valuable feature is manageability."
"The feature that has had the most impact is data locality. That is a feature that makes Nutanix different from other hypervisors. It helps us to get application performance that is probably double what we got with the legacy, three-tier architecture."
"The most valuable part of Nutanix is its centralized management of everything."
"With AHV, you can run micro-segmentation, which is, on the network security level, to have network virtualization across clouds."
"The entirety of the infrastructure resides in the same product, which makes it easy to troubleshoot and investigate problems."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is that you don't need to pay for it, it's free, as opposed to paying for a VMware license."
"Nutanix's customer support is good, one of its biggest selling points."
"It helps us with TCO."
"As an end-user, I would say it has allowed us to have the flexibility of moving around our workloads on different machines, and not having to worry if anything is down."
"The ability of a running VM to be quickly relocated to another hypervisor or launched at another site via replicated storage greatly reduces downtime."
"It's easy to use."
"It is easy to deploy and find troubleshooting articles as well."
"The solution is easy to use, user-friendly interface and has high availability features. When comparing it to other solutions it is more robust."
"We use it for our VDI infrastructure and managing virtual machines."
"For me, the most valuable feature would be the EVC, but EVC has been changed to be per-VM which makes it possible for us to migrate the VMs to cloud and not take into account what hardware they're running on. Also, a big improvement from the previous version is that I'm now able to schedule backup for the VCSA. That is, in my opinion, a huge improvement. The last thing that I think is really great is, I'm not able to boot the OS and not the entire server. That's going to save me a lot of time."
"In terms of improvement, I think that they could have more partnerships with providers."
"If you have the need for special hardware like FibreChannel-Cards or such and there is no networked-way around it (such as you could work with USB Dongles via an HW-Dongle-Server of network), you have to use a separate hypervisor."
"Lacks integration with the cloud or other solutions."
"Nutanix’s support team is not very efficient compared to others."
"The solution can be pricey."
"Some companies do not support AHV."
"Honestly, there's a lot to work on the product, especially for someone like me who has worked on VMware. VMware offers a significant level of customization when configuring virtual machines, and that level of detail is not as pronounced on Nutanix AHV Virtualization."
"It would be better if the solution's replication to another site could be efficiently optimized."
"In the past, little changes have broken things in vSphere. Going from 6.0, which worked perfectly fine on the Mac Pro, there were certain changes in hardware drivers, when 6.5 came out. Some were no longer present or had been deprecated. As a result, it didn't work on the Mac Pro anymore, which was business critical."
"Stability-wise, there are some minor issues."
"They must work on the price, as well as the technical support."
"On the older version of VMware vSphere, possibly version four, we had a feature that allowed us to backup Ziploc machines. It has not been available in the newer version such as six or seven. I have been looking for another solution to accomplish the backups but they should bring back this plugin-type tool to allow older backup capabilities."
"I would like to see support for endpoint virtualization."
"The web user interface can be a bit clunky from time to time, so there may be some room for improvement in that regard."
"VMware vSphere does not permit hard partitioning."
"The user interface could use some improvement."
Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 45 reviews while VMware vSphere is ranked 2nd in Server Virtualization Software with 446 reviews. Nutanix AHV Virtualization is rated 8.6, while VMware vSphere is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Nutanix AHV Virtualization writes "Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware vSphere writes "Offers good performance and is useful for banking systems". Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, KVM, Citrix Hypervisor and RHEV, whereas VMware vSphere is most compared with Hyper-V, Proxmox VE, Oracle VM, VMware Workstation and RHEV. See our Nutanix AHV Virtualization vs. VMware vSphere 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.
