We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and RHEV based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Virtualization Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."It is actually very low on resources. It doesn't use many resources. It is also very easy to tailor. You can change things like the amount of memory and storage on the fly. It is very stable and reliable. I like its replication feature, which is very good. It is also very easy to move the virtual machines across push servers without any difficulty. Its performance is also very good. Now with this pandemic, a lot of workers are working from home. A lot of workers have been using laptops as their desktop computers, and they would remote into a virtual PC. There is no difficulty, and they can't tell the difference between this and the real one. It is much easier to manage."
"The virtual SAN feature is helpful."
"It is a great advantage for any company that is using a Microsoft Windows server."
"The most valuable feature of Hyper-V is the replica service."
"The support with Microsoft is great."
"It is stable."
"I value the simplicity of configuration because it has worked as expected for my client."
"Using cluster with Hyper-V had a major impact on our protection environment. So all applications were virtualized using Hyper-V."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"The solution is a great all-round product. The virtualization is especially good."
"It is very stable."
"Customers are moving to open source and Red Hat is the leader in this particular space. I think customers feel more confident running Red Hat Virtualization than VMware."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"The only issues we have had recently are with Windows updates that are built into the Windows server with Hyper-V."
"There are some storage problems which do occur in high load systems, especially SQL workloads."
"Hyper-V doesn't have a lot of features and is limited compared to other virtualization software."
"The only negative thing I heard was that the baseline price is very, very attractive relative to VMware, however, the vCenter counterpart, the thing that brings it all together, is quite pricey."
"It would be nice if it was turned into its own product because that's the problem with it. It doesn't have a single place where you can manage things. You have to go into all different screens to be able to configure it. And then you have no idea what the performance is. It's really just a feature added to Windows, and Microsoft does not really have anything that pulls it all together well. Compared to VMware, it does not have everything collaborate on one screen."
"The solution should be compatible with different systems."
"We have our cluster connected to a Dell EMC VNX (SAN). The Hyper-V nodes are on Cisco UCS blades, and everything is interconnected via fiber. I attempted to use a virtual Fibre Channel connection to present a SAN volume to a VM but was not able to make that work."
"The biggest problem with Hyper-V is that the virtual machines are mostly running on top of the Windows Server, so we often need to reboot the machine and virtual machines when updating the host level. That's why we prefer VMware. It's much easier to patch the host. Also, Hyper-V has security vulnerabilities. It's easy to attack and compromise the host."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"When we do a direct comparison, then obviously VMware does better in terms of having Fault Tolerance and doing active disaster recovery and these kind of things. This is something that can be improved within Red Hat."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"This solution could be more secure."
"In comparison to VMware, this solution isn't as stable. We're testing it right now, and we're not trusting the stability of the product."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"I heard that there are big differences between Red Hat eight and seven, but it's still quite difficult for me to judge it. I found it a bit more difficult to manage than version seven, which was much easier. In term of features, though, it is still not yet clear which is better. I have no clear idea of which features need to be changed at the moment."
"The support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 30 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 8 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while RHEV is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "Enables the creation of secure, isolated virtual environments for running applications and allows seamless transfer of virtual machines between nodes without impacting users". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RHEV writes "An easy initial setup with fair pricing and good reliability". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox and IBM PowerVM, whereas RHEV is most compared with VMware vSphere, KVM, Proxmox VE, Oracle VM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization. See our Hyper-V vs. RHEV 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.