We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"It is stable."
"It has provided a good cost-saving from the management perspective."
"The performance is very good."
"Microsoft's a good name for legacy support and solutions"
"I find that most of the competition is more or less the same. However, Hyper-V is, when you compare it to the older platforms like VMware, a little bit more advanced at this stage."
"There are two very good things about this product including licensing and stability."
"We have a higher capacity server (specification wise) so there is no need to buy another additional hardware."
"I like that it's easy to use."
"Because the setup is so easy, this is a solution that can be used at a moment's notice."
"Great at solving connection problems."
"Technical support is very good."
"I haven't faced any inconveniences working with this solution. It is very easy to use."
"It would be nice if they provided a free management console that we could use to manage all of the hosts for no additional fee."
"Disaster recovery capabilities are the primary choice for improvement."
"Security, computing balance, and taking snapshots could be improved. Features like DRS and memory ballooning could be added."
"In general, based on my little experience with Hyper-V, I see a lot of obstacles. I think it falls behind the other competitors."
"If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult."
"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."
"I would like Microsoft to put more effort into the Admin Center interface and make it much easier. It is customizable, but you have to be a PowerShell expert to customize these things. That is a limitation."
"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."
"The price should be reduced."
"Performance could be improved, it's somewhat clunky."
"Lacks the ability to clone onto another system rather than starting from scratch."
"I would want to see features included that make deployment easier."
"The licensing is good for a data center environment."
"I think I'm okay with the cost. There are no monthly or yearly costs or additional costs."
"Thanks to our enterprise agreement with Microsoft, Hyper-V is free for us."
"There is a license required to use Hyper-V and there are bundle packages you can purchase making it cheaper than other solutions, such as VMware. Additionally, if there is a lot of guest OS that requires Windows, then Microsoft becomes cheaper."
"I recommend Hyper-V to customers with budget constraints."
"This is a fairly expensive product because it balances the needs of security."
"If you have the standard edition of Windows server then with each copy of the operating system, you have two virtual machines for free."
"Hyper-V is cost-effective and is a one-time purchase. Microsoft has multiple licensing options available, such as a subscription model and an outside purchase model that customers can choose as per their requirements."
"Licensing costs are paid on a yearly basis."
Hyper-V is a native hypervisor for x86-64 systems, enabling platform virtualization. It is a Microsoft product that comes in two forms. One form is Hyper-V as a standalone product, known as Hyper-V Server (Hyper-V Server 2012 R2 is the latest version). The other form is as a role to be installed in Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2012 R2, or the x64 version of Window 8 Pro. No matter what form it takes, Hyper-V gives you the services and tools required to create a virtualized server environment.
Hyper-V creates a cost-effective, stable and productive server virtualization environment by running multiple operating systems, such as Windows, Linux, and more, in parallel on one server.
Some of the business benefits of installing Hyper-V include:
Hyper-V is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 33 reviews while VMware Workstation is ranked 4th in Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) with 4 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 7.6, while VMware Workstation is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "Easy to use, straightforward to setup, and capable of scaling". On the other hand, the top reviewer of VMware Workstation writes "Excellent for testing and provides insight without having to purchase licenses". Hyper-V is most compared with KVM, Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, Oracle VM VirtualBox and Oracle VM, whereas VMware Workstation is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Horizon View, KVM, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services and Proxmox VE.
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.