There's no annual cost for the Hyper-V server version 2019. If you add up the other solutions we have on there, it totals up to around $3,000 a year.

The product comes with Windows Server. It is updated every time there's a new version of Windows Server. There is no separate license for the solution. It is part of Windows Server. There's no additional cost other than having a backup solution to back up the virtual machines. It might just be the cost of any backup software license.

The licensing costs depend on the environment you have. If you have an environment of less than 10 or 30 VMs, It's nice to have a Hyper-V, but if you have more than 100 or 200, I would recommend using VCenter, VMware virtualization, especially for an on-premise solution.

There is nothing extra required for Hyper-V apart from the licenses that one purchases to use Microsoft Windows.

Licensing cost depends on the edition you choose. There are two main options: Standard and Datacenter. 

With a Datacenter license, you can only create two virtual machines that are covered by the license itself. You can create more VMs, but they won't be licensed and could result in charges during an audit.

Feature-wise, both Standard and Datacenter editions offer the same functionalities. The key difference lies in licensing. Standard includes licenses for only two VMs, while Datacenter allows you to run any number of VMs with a single Datacenter license. Datacenter also offers functionalities like Storage Replica and live migration that aren't available in Standard.

The user doesn't have any control over the licensing process itself. You can create VMs regardless of licensing, but in Standard edition, they'll be considered unlicensed and subject to charges during an audit. 

Datacenter offers all the features of the Standard edition, plus the ability to run any number of licensed VMs as part of the Datacenter licensing cost. That's why Datacenter is more expensive.

The product is a bit expensive, but it is worth the money.

The product's price depends on the scale at which it is used in the company.

You do need to pay for a license in order to use the solution. It is a bit expensive and could be cheaper. 

The cost of the product actually comes under the Windows server purchase. A Windows Server standard license comes with Hyper-V. A minimum of eight core license units need to be purchased. The costs depend completely on your CPU and core central server.

The pricing is a function of how many cores you have or how many processors you have. Since we're a Microsoft partner and use tools to create and maintain the software that we sell subscriptions to, we get very attractive pricing. If whatever their counterpart to the vCenter licensing weren't an issue, it would probably be 20% of what we pay for VMware.

When you add the vCenter, counterpart back in, however, it comes to be probably 80%-85% of what you actually need. The last 10% or 15% is where it gets pricey. That's a lot to cover for us to do unless there's some other serious functional advantage - and our guys haven't seen that yet.

It's not expensive.

It is one of the cheapest products in the market. So, even though Nutanix gives away AHV, one still has to pay for Nutanix home.

Microsoft Hyper-V is not expensive and is easy to set up.

The license is free.

Hyper-V's price is a good point because it's within the overall license cost. I don't have to pay extra for Hyper-V, And that's a good point. Hyper-V's price is essentially zero because it's a feature of the operating system that I can enable and disable at will.

Do not immediately think of massive SANs and expensive servers. Instead, start small then evaluate and test properly to understand how workloads are treated. Microsoft, with Server 2019, gives you a massive number of tools to do this cost-effectively. 

Microsoft should have not required a data center license for the new feature of Storage Spaces Direct. There is a new feature that comes with Hyper-V called "Storage Spaces Direct"  What that storage does, it allows you to use the storage in host A and use the storage in host B, and make them work together like they're one shared storage array. The computers don't know that they're putting data on server A or B. To them, it looks like one big pool of disks. Before, we used to have to buy a separate storage array, external to the servers, and tie the servers to that array. But this new feature that comes with Hyper-V let's us use the storage inside the servers, it saves money. But Microsoft tacked on a higher price for their software to use that feature, and that was just terrible. We would be using that feature more if it did not demand a data center license.

The product's price is low. We have to pay a one-time cost.

Cost-wise, what one gets is directly proportional to the price paid. If the need for capacity doubles, then the price also doubles. We get all the licenses for the solution through a third party.

It is an inbuilt tool included in Windows Server. There is no cost associated with it if customers are already using Microsoft products.

Hyper-V is included in the Microsoft Azure license for no extra cost. However, they charge for technical support calls on an hourly basis.

I'm not sure of the exact pricing of the solution. The cost may be a bit higher than VMware, however.

You do need to pay for support, which is expensive. The solution by itself is free. 

Because we're an NGO or a charity, we get discount rates from Microsoft. The costs are not astronomical for us. To give you an example, Office 2019 would only cost 30 or 45 for us. We tend to use the on-premises version rather than the cloud version. The reason is that the subscription service works out more expensive after a few years than the on-premise version. We're not worried about having the bleeding edge stuff. We just want it to be functional.

The tool's pricing is cheap. 

Hyper-V is expensive. 

The solution is not as expensive as other options, for example, specifically VMware.

Hyper-V is free-of-charge.

Thanks to our enterprise agreement with Microsoft, Hyper-V is free for us. 

The solution is not expensive, and the subscription is annual. 

Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, the solution is not very expensive.

There is a license required for this solution. I would recommend purchasing the support.

There is a license to use this solution and it is an annual purchase.

I think Hyper-V is much cheaper for a small or medium-sized business. If the customer is running VMware and using Windows Server, we still have to purchase a Windows Server license plus the VMware license. Hyper-V will be cheaper if it's just a small deployment for one or two virtual machines.

Licensing is fairly easy because Hyper-V itself is free.

I wasn’t involved in the pricing or licensing, so I can’t really comment on it.

The costs in regards to upgrading the solution are quite high and it deters customers from changing versions.

The old solution in 2012 was charging at a cost per server and the pricing was good at the time. In 2016, Microsoft upgraded the licensing, or changed the licensing scheme to per CPU within the server. Basically, if we wanted to upgrade to 2016, we would have had to pay double again for the same software. Therefore, we decided to go with another solution.

The solution offers perpetual licensing.

It's free, minus the license for the host OS.

If you have the standard edition of Windows server then with each copy of the operating system, you have two virtual machines for free.

If you have a Windows Datacenter license then you have unlimited virtual machines for free. This is much better compared to ESXi or VMware, where each virtual machine requires its own license. In the Windows Datacenter, you can have as many as you want.

We pay an annual license for Hyper-V, and it's on the expensive side. 

We purchase the license from Microsoft.

We renew the software assurance every three years.

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.

The cost of the usage is dependant on the customer's requirements and if the virtual network is flexible or not. Since VMware is more flexible it can become superior but not cheaper.

The solution is quite expensive when you compare it to other products. Microsoft solutions aren't cheap. 

It is free for us so that was a prime factor for choosing this solution.

We chose this solution because of the pricing and the simplicity of the product.

Hyper-V is free, however if you build clusters, you should get a manager to centralize the management. If you are big enough and you have some money, I strongly recommend System Center, which includes VMM and other great tools like Orchestrator. You can automate building your VMs and even your application tiers. Also with VMM, you can automate spinning up new Hyper-V hosts with PXE boot. I configured, I used it, and it works perfectly.

If you are small shop go with a third party Hyper-V manager like 5nine. It is cheap, they even have a free version, and also a converter from VMware is free. I am using it right now and it works great. It includes alerting.

If for some reason you cant get either, you can manage your clusters directly from fail over cluster manager. It is just more manual work than with the tools above.

Hyper-V is free when you buy Windows Server. You only have to pay for engaging in the management aspect in System Center.

The Hyper-V pricing and licensing are very good. 

The pricing is not an issue for us because we have a licensing agreement with Microsoft. So we are given an 80% discount. 

We rent our licenses for this solution, which means that we also have access to premium-level support. The rental cost is payable annually and includes a number of products that work with this solution. It also allows us to run unlimited virtual machines without needing a license for each one.

I use the free version of Hyper-V.

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.

Hyper-V is part of Windows Server, so there are no extra costs for the product.

I recommend Hyper-V to customers with budget constraints. 

It's included in the windows, so not it's very expensive.

In terms of the licensing, if you are using Microsoft Windows 100%, it is okay, but, when you start mixing other environments it becomes quite tricky.

I think I'm okay with the cost. There are no monthly or yearly costs or additional costs.

There is a perpetual license to use the solution and there are additional fees for support.

I wish the licensing was simpler and allowed for a greater number of VMs with the Microsoft standard licensing. Overall I think it's fair. The pricing is definitely fair.

I do not have experience with the licensing of the product.

Licensing needs to be a lot easier to manage with Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware is easier.

The pricing is not much. We have a very big environment, and pricing is no problem. We did not spend much time looking at other products, though.

I do not have any comments about pricing or licensing of the product.

Our licensing fees are paid for as a package with the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. We have to pay for our data center licenses.

This is a fairly expensive product because it balances the needs of security.

I do not have experience with pricing or licensing of the product.

We pay a one-off licensing fee. The cost is competitive. 

With Hyper-V, you don't have any issues about making license payments as it's a Microsoft product.

We have an agreement with Microsoft so this came with the solution. The pricing is okay for us. 

I was not involved in the acquisition of the solution, so I do not have exact details about the pricing.

This product costs less than other competitor products on the market.

The licensing is good for a data center environment.

The licensing is pretty straightforward. 

I think Microsoft is a little better in pricing. But as I said, I'm not a pricing person, and I can't speak with great confidence on that. But in general, Microsoft is a little lower than BMI.

The pricing and licensing is fine.

The price is quite fair. It is not too expensive.

I think it is expensive. I think if they want it to be more competitive, they should lower the price. 

The pricing is competitive, and a bit less than other options on the market.

Once we bought the datacenter version of the server, we did away with worrying about the cost of licensing our VMs separately.

The pricing isn't too bad, because you can do the bare metal hyper-visor, and it is pretty fair. Other competitors are more expensive.

It's cheap, but not the best.

The pricing and licensing is pretty good.