We performed a comparison between Red Hat Enterprise 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.
Users of Windows Server 2016 feel that it is a very user-friendly solution. Furthermore, they note that its active directory feature is highly valuable. They also note that it is highly scalable. However, many users feel that its security capabilities could be greatly improved. They also feel that the graphical interface could be better.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Red Hat Enterprise Linux seems to be a slightly superior solution. All other things being more or less equal, our reviewers found Windows Server 2016 rather expensive to purchase and not as secure as it should be.
"We run Satellite on a lot of these, so having a central repository that we can use for patch management and remote execution is huge. That's something that is very difficult in a Windows environment. We're very compliance driven, so to have that built into Red Hat is easy. We don't need an agent or anything like that to get a lot of work done, so Satellite and centralized automation are the most valuable features for us."
"The solution's SELinux feature is a gold standard for security. It also has the best ecosystem."
"We are a Managed Service Provider. Red Hat Enterprise Linux enables us not to be worried about vulnerabilities, security, and patching."
"The solution's use of Kubernetes as an internal or core process on the system is brilliant."
"The most valuable features are stability and supportability... You want to have something that's up and running and stable, something that's not going to crash. But if we do have an issue, we can get somebody for technical support who can help us work through the problems."
"It has improved our organization's management and efficiency."
"We use this product's built-in tracing and monitoring tools such as syslog and SAR (system activity reporter) to provide us with greater insight and visibility into what's going on."
"The solution's most valuable feature revolves around its simplicity, especially when maintaining it, which is an easy process."
"It is easy to use, and its performance is good."
"The solution is easy to use."
"We chose Windows Server because it is easy to use, and easy to maintain."
"The solution, in general, is quite straightforward. A beginner could probably use it with ease. It's always more or less simple to understand how this works."
"Windows Server is running well, the performance is good, there are no issues and it is stable."
"What I like most about Windows Server is that it's easy to use."
"The platform generates a return on investment in terms of stability."
"The installation is not difficult. I found it to be very straightforward."
"Writing SELinux policies is sometimes very hard if you want to deploy a new application on it."
"The numerous links to different pages disrupt the flow of information and make it difficult to maintain focus."
"Though the product has many features, the tool's virtualization area has certain shortcomings that require improvement."
"RHEL could be improved in several ways, especially regarding transparency and communication of new features."
"The solution's ecosystem is good but it would be better to create cohesive components in all of the development tools."
"I would like to see additional features, including automation and the introduction of AI/ML-based tools within Red Hat to handle manual tasks that humans are required to do."
"It is challenging to use the knowledge base and the deployment documentation."
"A lot of it is related to communication. They are building solid products, and quite often, people do not find out about them until two or three years have passed."
"It would be nice if the solution was a bit cheaper. The product is a little pricey."
"The graphical user interface could be better. It's a little dated."
"The integration and monitoring could be improved."
"I used to like the graphical interface and graphical philosophy in previous versions of Windows Server. I am not able to be as fast and efficient as I used to be using a graphical interface. However, Windows has moved to the PowerShell, it is powerful, but is still limited compared to what we do can do in Linux. Linux was built at the beginning of the command line interfaces which is why they have a very powerful command line."
"Better integration with more platforms would be useful."
"The command-line interface should be improved."
"I would like to see the security features improved in the future."
"Windows Server needs to improve its speed and stability."
More Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is ranked 1st in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 191 reviews while Windows Server is ranked 4th in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 180 reviews. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is rated 8.8, while Windows Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) writes "Highly stable, good knowledge base, and reasonable price". 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". Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is most compared with Ubuntu Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Windows 10, Oracle Linux and CentOS, whereas Windows Server is most compared with Ubuntu Linux, Windows 10, Oracle Linux, Windows 11 and CentOS. See our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 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.
