We performed a comparison between Hyper-V, KVM, and VMware vSphere based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."It is a great advantage for any company that is using a Microsoft Windows server."
"The virtualization aspect of the solution functions similar to VMware is one of its most valuable features…It is a stable product."
"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."
"The replication, creation, and import wizard, as well as the integration with reporting tools, are the most useful features."
"We chose this solution because of the pricing and the simplicity of the product."
"II prefer customers to use Hyper-V because Hyper-V is mostly integrated with Microsoft solutions."
"The ease of use of Hyper-V is the most valuable feature."
"The most valuable feature is that it's an end-to-end solution."
"I find the density of the product most valuable. It is density that a technologist can just assign page merging. This is what makes KVM one of the important players of the virtualization market."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"Very cost-effective."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"It stands out as a comprehensive and advantageous solution, providing a full package that effectively caters to our needs for managing our private cloud."
"It is fairly easy to use and has enhanced security."
"Overall, it is a pretty good solution. We do not have to worry about upgrading the versions that people use for our in-house software. We just create ThinApps, and as soon as they log in, they always get the upgraded version. This part really works well for us."
"We primarily use vRealize to troubleshoot any issues that may arise with our virtual machines, which is the main reason why we believe this solution is excellent."
"The solution is scalable."
"Their command-line tools integrate well with other Microsoft products like PowerShell, so I can manipulate VMs using it."
"It is a very dependable solution. Its performance is very good, and it is also easy to manage and implement."
"The documentation is very good."
"I have found it difficult to manage more than one virtual machine."
"I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved."
"Hyper-V is hosted on OS but if your OS scratches you are in big trouble. In addition, if a host fails, automatically the machine and the virtual machine should boot from another source. Those type of features would benefit Hyper-V."
"The area revolving around operations in the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"They should include a few more hardware components for integration with servers."
"We would like to have a cloning function added to this product."
"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."
"Status and availability became an issue and need."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"One thing that maybe could be improved is making it easier to scale. It needs to be more clear on how to scale the storage space for virtual machines."
"We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment. The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison. I would like to see FT features in KVM."
"We would like to have a software lifecycle solution included in this solution. We can handle the software needed for KVM, but also the software that we provide. A lifecycle component would be very beneficial."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"The Web Client is too slow."
"The solution’s pricing is too high and could be improved."
"I would like to see VDP and other features included to back up the VMs in a native manner."
"I would like them to move into having a containerized application to manage the vCenter."
"The price could be better. The licensing is definitely expensive and tech support is sometimes frustrating."
"I think the pricing could be lower, and the technical support could be improved."
"The implementation of VMware vSphere is easy. For integration companies, it's easy, the final client cannot do it alone but for an implementor it's easy."
"I would like to see support for endpoint virtualization."