We performed a comparison between Microsoft Virtual Server and Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Virtualization solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."I appreciate the ease and speed with which I can set up and manage virtual machines using Microsoft Virtual Server."
"The standout features are its seamless network integration, robust data restoration capabilities, and versatile computing functions."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share folders and run Active Directory."
"The most valuable features are monitoring, and the self-service that they have for a customized environment."
"It has proven to be most effective for workloads associated with running web portals."
"Microsoft Virtual Server is user-friendly."
"The product provides flexibility."
"Microsoft Virtual Server is a stable and easy-to-use solution."
"Allows us to publish applications accessible by current-generation HTML5 browser or OS-specific client (Windows, Android, iOS), and it supports popular single sign-on and multi-factor authentication protocols."
"Simplicity of the interface is a valuable feature."
"We can publish apps and desktops on Terminal Servers and seamlessly share printers. We also combine Parallels with Deepnet Security to get two-factor authentication."
"It has allowed us to centralize the software location so we don't have to update the software client on 70 computers."
"It is a stable solution."
"Its price and ease of use are the most valuable. It is simple and has good performance."
"Valuable features include the ability to set up security groups for accessing certain apps, and the ability to add apps easily and centrally without touching the servers they’re hosted on."
"It permits us to control the applications that our users are able to get to, in a seamless manner. We're able to distribute applications to users' desktops, just like those applications are on each user's computer, but they're not."
"The solution should be more user-friendly and cheaper."
"The platform’s dashboard features could be better."
"The interface should be improved."
"Support could always be a bit better."
"The product must provide easier rollouts."
"Microsoft Virtual Server's cost was an area of concern...I feel Microsoft Virtual Server will be stopped in a couple of months or a couple of years, and it will be completely replaced with SQL Server data warehouse and Microsoft Fabric."
"It would be good if the tool's integration improved."
"The main thing that could be improved is the licensing cost."
"It needs Windows scaling on Android/iOS devices. At present, the concept of delivering apps to Android and iOS devices is appealing, but the reality is the screen size on these devices is so small that, unless there is some scaling option, it is not really usable."
"The solution's application virtualization feature needs improvement."
"We would like the ability to provide a popup message, such as a maintenance notification. That same notification on the Parallels client would be awesome."
"The customization of the web interface could possibly use some improvement. Little things, like being able to place a background image instead of just choosing from a palette of colors, would be nice."
"Improvement is needed in performance monitoring of the client's endpoint, and automatic re-connection of the client in the event of circuit disruptions (this works well generally but can present challenges)."
"We have had significant, ongoing issues with printing. It would be great to have a best practice for dealing with printing that we can offer to our customers."
"If the solution crashes, then all the customers connected through that agent, lose their session."
"HALB is not stable in our environment. When running two HALBs we have stability problems, so we use an active one and a passive for backup. Also, it would be nice to implement an upgrade of the environment without having to stop the servers. As it is, this must be done during off-hours."
More Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Virtual Server is ranked 3rd in Application Virtualization with 31 reviews while Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) is ranked 5th in Application Virtualization with 24 reviews. Microsoft Virtual Server is rated 8.2, while Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Virtual Server writes "Has a good interface but needs to improve in areas like pricing and scalability". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) writes "Provides good scalability and a secure environment". Microsoft Virtual Server is most compared with , whereas Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) is most compared with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service), Citrix Workspace, VMware Workstation and NVIDIA GRID. See our Microsoft Virtual Server vs. Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) report.
See our list of best Application Virtualization vendors.
We monitor all Application Virtualization 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.