We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Proxmox VE based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Hyper-V and Proxmox VE seem to have a more or less rating among users regarding ease of deployment, pricing, and service and support. In terms of features, users of Hyper-V weren’t satisfied with the recovery capabilities and the instability if the stack became bloated. On the other hand, users of Proxmox VE didn’t like the need to update manually but felt that the solution was young. Therefore, the bugs they experienced will hopefully have a solution with a future update.
"The solution is very user-friendly."
"I think all of these improvements are going in a good direction. For me, its direction is good and I'm very satisfied with this product."
"I like the functionality."
"The support with Microsoft is great."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The most valuable feature of Hyper-V is that it's very intuitive."
"Hyper-V integrates well with other Microsoft solutions."
"It is definitely the toughest competitor for VMware. It easily increases memory for our virtual machines."
"Saves a lot of time compared to imaging physical desktops."
"You can easily migrate VMs between hosts."
"The whole solution is good. It has good tools that help me in managing the servers. It is also stable."
"In addition to the virtualization, the firewall and the routing functions that it provides are valuable."
"It is easy to deploy."
"Proxmox is free, very stable, and doesn't require more resources for memory RAM. It's fine for a small data center."
"The most valuable feature of Proxmox VE is its storage."
"The setup is very easy."
"Many vendors, such as Cisco and HPE, are discontinuing support for Hyper-V as they believe it does not have a significant market share."
"When one server or one virtual machine fails, or one is turned off, the virtualization stops, and we have to initiate again with human intervention."
"The solution should be compatible with different systems."
"It would be better if it demanded less memory. Once you have allocated those memory spaces for the installed server, fewer resources are left to allocate for the Hyper-V virtual environment. That's the drawback with that. For example, once you install Windows 10, and let's say Windows 2019, Windows 2019 will take at least 10 GB of memory. If a customer has only 16 GB of RAM on the system, they think of installing Hyper-V. Because when you have windows 2019 or something else, they give two free Hyper-V virtual licenses. But we can't because there's not enough memory. We can, however, install this as a VMS. But this UI isn't that user-friendly for most customers. They like to have a user interface with VMI, and it's not easy when you install VMI. It would also be better if they can improve their core Hyper-V version to be a bit more familiar and user-friendly with its interface. I think it would be much easier. We had a few issues with the VM Hyper-V virtual network. Once you have such issues, it's very difficult to find out where they came from. They had such issues, and we had to resolve the system again. But other than that, if it's useful and keeps working nicely, it will work very nicely even if something happens. But it's very hectic and challenging to find out where it's happening. In the next release, it would be better to control this data store part in a manageable way. This is because once we install and create a Hyper-V machine, it goes everywhere. It would be better if it had a single location and a single folder with a heartbeat and virtual machine information. You can just go forward, and the data store and everything are going into one place like the C drive. But something always goes fast, or everything gets lost if the customer doesn't manually change the direction of where the virtual hard drive routes, the more serious the problem. It would be better if they could merge all that together. This includes the virtual machine and the virtual hard drive in the same folder when creating the virtual machine. I think that it would be much easier to manage and in case something happens. Technical support also could be better."
"I also use VMware which I find to be more scalable and stable overall."
"The cost and licensing can be improved."
"I would love to see other options for connecting VMs to large data storage."
"There needs to be more functionality overall in the Hyper-V manager."
"Its performance and support can be improved. Currently, there is a cost for support."
"The only disadvantage of Proxmox VE is that it is a young solution so it does have some bugs."
"We are facing issues with disk utilization and disk performance."
"Some of the more advanced features and options required for setup still need to use the console and hand edit config files."
"Backup and recovery could be better. It's a bit problematic. If you're not well-versed with Linux, it tends to be a bit of a challenge when setting up and recovering. It's not really GUI-based, and if you're not a good Linux user, it becomes a bit difficult. In the next release, I would like to have something like Hyper-V's Data Protection Manager, where you could do an offsite backup and keep a copy. I haven't seen that incorporated yet, but I'm sure they will do that."
"Proxmox needs to improve the integration of its network, machines, and virtual machines."
"Proxmox VE can improve by importing OVF or OVA files directly from OVA. I need to convert all the images to raw images before importing them to Proxmox VE. If there is a solution that I can import directly from VMDK, it would be better."
"The Windows drivers could be easier (unlike manually installing Ballon, QEMU and optionally SPICE, VIRTio, etc.)"
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Proxmox VE is ranked 1st in Server Virtualization Software with 58 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Proxmox VE 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 Proxmox VE writes "Easy to use and supports multi-monitors on multiple VMs in KVM". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Oracle VM VirtualBox, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas Proxmox VE is most compared with VMware vSphere, Oracle VM VirtualBox, KVM, Nutanix AHV Virtualization and Citrix Hypervisor. See our Hyper-V vs. Proxmox VE 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.