We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and VMware VSphere based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: VMware VSphere is the winner in this comparison. It is easy to deploy, reliable, robust, and has excellent customer support. Hyper-V does come out on top in the pricing category, however.
"Hyper-V improved the infrastructure drastically, not only from a performance perspective but from a control/administration view as well."
"I like that it's easy to use."
"The most valuable features are ease of use, and it gets the job done in a straightforward manner."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The simplicity and intuitiveness of the platform. It was a very simple adaptation, if you have any experience in virtualization."
"The initial setup is easy."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The most valuable feature of Hyper-V is that it's very intuitive."
"vRealize Operations Manager is the most valuable feature, but it is not embedded in vSphere; it is a part of vSphere. It is used for forecasting and checking the consumption of CPU, memory, and other resources. It has the capability to do the forecast based on the history and give advice on consumption. VMware vSphere is easy to use and easy to implement. Its learning curve is not sharp. Any engineer with little or medium knowledge of hypervisors and virtualizations can implement vSphere with a few clicks."
"As an end-user, I would say it has allowed us to have the flexibility of moving around our workloads on different machines, and not having to worry if anything is down."
"vMotion is one of the most useful features, which helps to provide both flexibility and High Availability. With new versions of vSphere and vCenter, it is still improving (e.g., vMotion across vCenter Servers and virtual switches)."
"The most valuable feature of VMware vSphere is the ability to work in a big system infrastructure."
"The installation process is very straightforward."
"The most useful features are ESXi, DRS, Auto Deploy, and the Lifecycle Manager."
"The UI is very intuitive, you don't have to spend hours before you figure it out. All in all, compared to other environments, like Hyper-V, we find vSphere a lot more user-friendly and intuitive to use."
"The visibility that we have of our VMs is also important. What's being applied? Who has management of them? Laying it out in a virtual environment allows us customization for our students. We're able to respond to the students' needs much more quickly than we could in a physical environment."
"The interface could be more user friendly. In addition, the documentation and security could use improvement."
"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 solution is lacking in numerous features and lacks flexibility."
"The initial setup was complex. It was nearly six years ago, but I remember it was complicated."
"They could work on lowering the cost of the solution."
"In terms of performance, when compared to VMware, it is much slower."
"Hyper-V needs to improve its support."
"They can hot add NICs to the VMs. However, there is still not the ability to hot add virtual processors to running VMs."
"I’d like to see a better web console or rather, transform the web console in a real single pane of glass for the whole infrastructure instead of having to go for vRealize Ops Manager."
"The pipeline feature can be improved, as it doesn't allow for specific situations."
"The container management could be improved. It's far from perfect right now."
"The only way for it to be a complete product is if you integrate all the functionalities. Then you don't need any backup solution anymore and you can do it by yourself. Integration needs improvement. They should improve a lot of the functionality because normally it's half of a product. You're only protecting yourself against technical failures but not against any cyber threats or any other stuff."
"The initial setup is quite complex."
"VMware vSphere does not permit hard partitioning."
"One problem that needs fixing is when we run the backup for the servers, the servers become inaccessible to everybody on-site while it is creating a snapshot."
"The cost could always be lower."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 30 reviews while VMware vSphere is ranked 2nd in Server Virtualization Software with 14 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while VMware vSphere is rated 8.8. 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 VMware vSphere writes "Offers a suite of software components for virtualization including ESXi, vCenter Server, and other software". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas VMware vSphere is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware Workstation, Oracle VM, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization. See our Hyper-V vs. VMware vSphere 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.