We performed a comparison between Hyper-V, KVM, and Oracle VM VirtualBox based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."The initial setup was very easy."
"The interface is quite good."
"This solution helps us with production of our office business needs."
"I like that it's easy to use."
"Hyper-V improved the infrastructure drastically, not only from a performance perspective but from a control/administration view as well."
"The solution has an easy setup."
"This is the best solution for customers with budget constraints."
"Hyper-V's technical support is good - they're responsive and sort cases based on criticality and category, so they get dealt with quickly and by the correct team."
"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."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"The most helpful aspect of KVM is the fact that the interface is so minimal. It includes just what you need to set up the VMs and manage them, and it's very simple to do so."
"KVM is stable."
"It offers a high-availability environment."
"I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy."
"There is a strong emphasis on availability, and they have numerous API interfaces for distributed storage and the solution is quite known for its openness."
"I like that it's easy to manage. It's also more powerful when it comes to security than others. That point of view is the one consideration. The other consideration is that it's cost-effective."
"This solution creates a snapshot of virtual machines so you can create test environments."
"The flexibility and the closed platform, so it allows you to run in multiple platforms, Windows, Linux, Macintosh."
"The versatility, simplicity, and stability of the product are it's most valuable features."
"The solution is very convenient and easy to use."
"This is a highly scalable solution."
"Oracle VM Virtualbox is easy to use and does not require much training."
"The solution is very stable."
"This solution can be used on many different platforms including Windows and Linux."
"The technical support is good but it could improve by being faster."
"There needs to be more functionality overall in the Hyper-V manager."
"SCVMM needs to be more user-friendly. Without SCVMM, automating is not easy to use and we look forward to the upcoming versions of SCVMM becoming simpler and more admin friendly."
"Hyper-V serves its purpose, but some areas may not be as feature-rich as alternatives like VMware ESXi."
"There are bugs, and this should be resolved by Microsoft."
"Hyper-V could benefit with improvements to their management interface."
"VLAN is not very easy to configure."
"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."
"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."
"In our setup, we do not have any dashboards or orchestration, and it is hard to manage. We have 25 gig network cards, but the software driver we have only supported 10 gigs."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"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."
"I believe KVM offers a unified answer, while ProxMark addresses orchestration. KVM lacks orchestration. If the aim is to centrally oversee multiple KVMs – let's say to freeze them – a centralized management solution is absent."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"Oracle’s support team should improve its response time."
"The AI and the UI could be improved. The user interface is a little outdated and the AI is not very attractive."
"Oracle VMs don't have a solid web interface of their own. This is an area where Oracle is lagging behind. Now, we use headless servers, install Oracle VMs, and manage them remotely. We could use phpVirtual Box, but it is a third-party solution. A lot of people contribute to it, and it's not authenticated by Oracle. As a result, I don't find it to be a good option. Therefore, I would like to see Oracle offer an extension pack or a licensed version that fixes this problem."
"The technical support needs to improve."
"There are a few bugs that need to be updated."
"The solution has to do a better job of promoting the product and its licensing capabilities."
"The installation is difficult and could be improved."