We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Nutanix AHV Virtualization based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Hyper-V came out on top in this comparison. It is easy to manage and customize, and has very low resource usage, resulting in very little downtime. It is robust, stable, and provides many desired next-generation features. As a Microsoft product, it integrates well with many solutions in the Microsoft ecosystem, in addition to many other popular third-party solutions.
"There are two very good things about this product including licensing and stability."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the storage virtualization."
"Using cluster with Hyper-V had a major impact on our protection environment. So all applications were virtualized using Hyper-V."
"It has provided a good cost-saving from the management perspective."
"With each update, the security of this solution just gets better and better. It is very stable."
"It makes it easier to deploy service. All service tends to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent."
"It is easy to use, and it is stable. It is a good solution."
"Microsoft has documentation that is easy to find, helpful, and readily available."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between storage and compute services."
"The initial setup of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is straightforward."
"Nutanix AHV is very scalable. It can go to unlimited nodes."
"The setup is efficient."
"Nutanix AHV virtualization requires little disk size for a huge number of servers. We can do everything from a single dashboard, monitoring performance, and single-task boxes."
"Nutanix AHV Virtualization is a private cloud platform offering integration with various public cloud providers. This integration allows for a multi-cloud approach. In my opinion, Nutanix AHV Virtualization's strength is its storage. It innovates and excels in the hyper-converged storage segment, making it the number one choice in this area."
"The dashboard of the solution is one of its strongest points."
"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."
"I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved."
"The operating system is very, very heavy."
"Sometimes it is a mess, and it is getting hanged. It should be something that could be easily fixed. It made us have to deal with fixing the bugs."
"The Hyper-V management console could be improved to make it easier. It should be a little bit more granular. Various virtual switches could also be improved to make virtual desk management slightly better. The replication could be improved slightly. The checkpoints or snapshots could be improved to make it a bit more transparent to the user."
"Hyper-V isn't a lightweight solution like VMware. Management could be more straightforward. Even as far as disk management tools are concerned, it would be better if that could be made simpler. The same applies to performance."
"The live migration feature needs improvement."
"I think there is room for improvement in terms of the cloud solutions."
"The only issues we have had recently are with Windows updates that are built into the Windows server with Hyper-V."
"To face no complications in our company, we had to switch off virtual machines one after the other before heading to Nutanix platform and going to edge services to switch off and turn off everything, making it a challenging process for me."
"Lacks integration with the cloud or other solutions."
"If we have to opt for a high level of capacity planning and need more analytics—like deciding on new purchases or budgeting, or if we need additional resources in the near future—we need to pay for Prism Central. I would suggest that Nutanix improve a bit on the analytics part of Prism Element so we can calculate those kinds of things within that flavor."
"They need to work on the deployment of virtual machines. They need to streamline the process of templates and deploying virtual machines."
"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."
"VMware does tend to have more features than AHV. It's more of the leader in this space."
"It should focus on providing more detailed and helpful error messages. One area we'd like to see enhanced is better support for guest VMs, especially in a heterogeneous environment."
"An improvement would be for Nutanix AHV to support VMDK, AOS, Hyper-V, and VMware."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 45 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Nutanix AHV Virtualization 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 AHV Virtualization writes "Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, KVM and Citrix Hypervisor, whereas Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, KVM, Citrix Hypervisor and RHEV. See our Hyper-V vs. Nutanix AHV Virtualization 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.