Hyper-V vs. IBM Cloud Managed Istio

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Hyper-V
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
N/A
$24.95
per month
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Score 8.7 out of 10
N/A
The IBM Cloud Kubernetes Service provides the Managed Istio installation add on, designed to provide additonal control over clusters and the microservices they comprise via automatic updates and lifecycle management of control plane components, and integration with platform logging and monitoring tools.N/A
Pricing
Hyper-VIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Editions & Modules
Developer
$24.95
per month
Bronze
$49.00
per month
Silver
$89.00
per month
Gold
$135.00
per month
Platinum
$199.00
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Hyper-VIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Free Trial
NoNo
Free/Freemium Version
NoNo
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
NoNo
Entry-level Setup FeeNo setup feeNo setup fee
Additional Details
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Hyper-VIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Considered Both Products
Hyper-V
Chose Hyper-V
Oracle VirtualBox works just fine on workstations, for testing pourposes. But sometimes the virtual network conflicts with the physical cards on the workstation. VMware is the state of the art, but it costs more than gold, and you will have to license every Windows Server VM …
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V is much simpler and less costly the VMWare. Administration is far more intuitive. This reduces cost to implement, and cost to maintain. In our SMB focused environment (10-70 users) the enterprise advantages of VSphere (multi-site, blade / SAN architecture, and …
Chose Hyper-V
VMware ESXi, VMware Fusion, VMware Workstation Pro and AWS Organizations
Chose Hyper-V
VMware Workstation Player and Pro are now free for Small Businesses, but Pro used to be paid and quite expensive. There are compatibility issues between those products and Windows hosts, giving that Microsoft has their own hypervisor platform already. Also, if you use Linux, …
Chose Hyper-V
No extra licensing costs. It's easy to use. We haven't suffered any downtime due to virtualization problems. It's a rock solid solution.
Chose Hyper-V
Considering the maturity of ESXi, Hyper-V is something I would definitely consider using in future jobs or organisations. We selected Hyper-V after many years of using ESXi; several factors led us to this change, including a poor support experience with VMware, and the lower …
Chose Hyper-V
ESXi, to me, seems to do things better in almost every way. It is much quicker to deploy ESXi compared to Hyper-V. I also feel like Hyper-V requires more frequent updates so I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
Chose Hyper-V
VMware is the pioneer of virtualization but when you compare it with Hyper-V, VMware lacks the flexibility of hardware customization and configuration options Hyper-V has also GPU virtualization still not adequate for both platforms. VMware has better graphical interface and …
Chose Hyper-V
I switched to VMware Workstation Pro, after using Hyper-V for several years. The thing I missed in Hyper-V was the network management which has too less configuration options compared to VMWare Workstation Pro. Also managing the snapshots was more user-friendly in VMWare …
Chose Hyper-V
The ease of use and essentially free license made the adoption of Hyper-V in some parts of my current and one of my previous organizations a no-brainer.
For sure it's not the best product on the market, but it will do the job just fine in a lot of use cases. Automated …
Chose Hyper-V
Though Docker provides cross-platform support and isolation, Hyper-V provides true virtualization over the host OS and creates boundary over guest OS that protects the security threats, resource-hogging on the host OS.
Chose Hyper-V
While many have additional features or lower overhead the ease of use and low-cost licensing make Hyper-V our preferred choice for most clients. And because we are mostly a Microsoft shop and it is built on Windows when we need to troubleshoot the hypervisor itself we already …
Chose Hyper-V
It is much cheaper and has at least the same functionality as what we use. It integrates better in our Windows environment and it works more familiar with similar tools that we already use. And it is on fewer vendors, much easier for support. Very happy with the switch from …
Chose Hyper-V
Overall, VMWare appears to be more full-featured and perhaps a bit more robust, but the integration and no-cost factors of Hyper-V won the day. We have had no issues with Hyper-V since instigating it five years ago and do not regret the decision.
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V is much cheaper and does not have the license requirement of VMware. Hyper-V is not a product that scales like VMware and not well suited to a large datacenter.
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V is well suited for environmental testing purposes. Let's say you want to learn or test a new OS for a product or just for learning purposes. You are able to boot up this os in just a few mins on Hyper-V and then start working, testing, and learning with no money out of …
Chose Hyper-V
I used VMware vSphere at another company. However, for infrastructure with only two virtual machines, the VMware license cost is not worth it, because with the Windows Server Standard license you have the possibility to install two virtual servers at no extra cost.
Chose Hyper-V
We selected Hyper-V because it was built in to Windows and had no licensing costs. The functionality was similar, VMware seemed like a more premium product, and had support. But those are the bare minimum when competing with an embedded solution. VMware is reported to be …
Chose Hyper-V
I used to use VMWare and was certified but I have no justification to move off this platform. It is sufficient.
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V performs very well in environment running windows operating systems and performs well under various workloads. The replication and recovery features of hyper-v work well but lack some of usability of tools such as Zerto, VMware replication and site recovery manager to …
Chose Hyper-V
You already have to purchase the licensing for Windows Servers so why not bundle that in with the cost of the hypervisor. VMware seems to be a better virtualization platform with a better dashboard, but if you aren't managing hundreds of physical servers across multiple data …
Chose Hyper-V
We went with Hyper-V since it's backed by Microsoft. Most of our businesses use MS, so going with supported products helps when we need to open a case if we run into issues. There are other alternatives, but the ease and support of Hyper-V make it our go-to product for …
Chose Hyper-V
Microsoft's virtualization with Hyper-V has given us a great opportunity to increase the availability of services, thus increasing the satisfaction of our end user. With Microsoft virtualization, we have increased availability as follows:
  • Improved service levels.
  • Reduced …
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V is not only a free virtualization solution for businesses, but it's also a very stable and very intuitive environment. The learning curve for Hyper-V is very simple and there are a lot of resources online for Hyper-V. VMWare is actually the leader in the virtualization …
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
Amazon API Gateway and MuleSoft Anypoint Platform
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
[IBM Cloud Managed] Istio is cost-effective compared overall with and provides better Kubernetes environments.
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
1) One-stop solution for all the complex network connectivity managed by [IBM Cloud Managed Istio].
2) Nice dashboard to understand the flow.
3) Easy to troubleshoot the service if any one of the APIs is not responding.
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
The ease of use and the scalability have been major factors in the decision making. We like that there is not a lot of repetitive work that must be done in order to bring in existing concepts and ideas into different work streams that have similar but not the same challenges. …
Chose IBM Cloud Managed Istio
It's a cost effective solution for my organization.
Features
Hyper-VIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Server Virtualization
Comparison of Server Virtualization features of Product A and Product B
Hyper-V
7.6
Ratings
6% below category average
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
-
Ratings
Virtual machine automated provisioning6.90 Ratings00 Ratings
Management console7.70 Ratings00 Ratings
Live virtual machine backup8.20 Ratings00 Ratings
Live virtual machine migration7.30 Ratings00 Ratings
Hypervisor-level security7.80 Ratings00 Ratings
Platform-as-a-Service
Comparison of Platform-as-a-Service features of Product A and Product B
Hyper-V
-
Ratings
IBM Cloud Managed Istio
8.0
Ratings
3% above category average
Ease of building user interfaces00 Ratings6.90 Ratings
Scalability00 Ratings7.90 Ratings
Platform management overhead00 Ratings7.80 Ratings
Workflow engine capability00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Platform access control00 Ratings8.70 Ratings
Services-enabled integration00 Ratings8.60 Ratings
Development environment creation00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Development environment replication00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Issue monitoring and notification00 Ratings8.00 Ratings
Issue recovery00 Ratings8.90 Ratings
Upgrades and platform fixes00 Ratings7.20 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Hyper-VIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Small Businesses
DigitalOcean Droplets
DigitalOcean Droplets
Score 9.6 out of 10
AWS Lambda
AWS Lambda
Score 8.2 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
Score 10.0 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.1 out of 10
Enterprises
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
Score 10.0 out of 10
Red Hat OpenShift
Red Hat OpenShift
Score 9.1 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Hyper-VIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Likelihood to Recommend
8.4
(0 ratings)
8.7
(0 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
10.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Usability
8.9
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Availability
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Performance
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Support Rating
7.5
(0 ratings)
6.4
(0 ratings)
In-Person Training
8.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Online Training
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
5.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Configurability
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Ease of integration
7.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Product Scalability
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
9.0
(0 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
User Testimonials
Hyper-VIBM Cloud Managed Istio
Likelihood to Recommend
Hyper-V is well suited to virtualizing low production server count environments without WAN replication or failover on discrete host hardware. It starts to be less competitive in more enterprise environments where WAN replication or SAN / Blade architecture is preferred. Scalability via dynamic resource allocation also does not seem to be as functional as the large V competition, although I have limited experience implementing this in either product.
Read full review
It is a perfect application when you have multiple users and/or developers and you want to create rules and standards for access and the ability to change access levels. The reporting of usage is good, but adding more granularity into the metrics that have been used to measure are not specific enough. They provide detail but drilling into the detail would be more appropriate i.e. access to the baseline data.
Read full review
Pros
  • Easy to use GUI - very easy for someone with sufficient Windows experience - not necessarily a system administrator.
  • Provisioning VMs with different OSes - we mostly rely on different flavors of Windows Server, but having a few *nix distributions was not that difficult.
  • Managing virtual networks - we usually have 1 or 2 VLANs for our business purposes, but we are happy with the outcomes.
Read full review
  • Debug issues
  • Monitoring
  • allows many services form many different sources
Read full review
Cons
  • We manage Hyper-V using both System Center Virtual Machine Manager (SCVMM) and the in-build Hyper-V administration tool, the former being the main product we use as the built-in tool is very light on functionality, unlike VMware ESXi.
  • Management of storage is not great and quite a shift away from how VMware does it with ESXi; there is no separate panel/blade/window for LUNs/data stores, which means there is a lot of back and forth when trying to manage storage.
  • A dedicated client with all functionality in one place would be awesome.
  • Having the equivalent of ESXi's virtual console is something which is absolutely needed.
Read full review
  • Still missing functionalities for a full usage as traffic director.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Cheap and easy is the name of the game. It has great support, it doesn't require additional licenses, it works the same if it is a cluster or stand-alone, and all the servers can be centrally managed from a system center virtual machine manager server, even when located at remote sites.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Usability
It is very easy to configure new virtual machines and manage them. But you have to use different interfaces to perform various tasks. Especially as soon as it comes to clustering you have to use at least two different interfaces (Hyper-V Manager and Failover-Cluster Manager) to perform all necessary tasks. The newly released Windows Admin Center is a way into the right direction to get all management tasks into one single interface.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Reliability and Availability
In the past 2 years our Hyper-V servers have only had a handful of instances where the VM's on them were unreachable and the physical Hyper-V server had to be restarted. One time this was due to a RAM issue with the physical box and was resolved when we stopped using dynamic memory in Hyper-V. The other times were after updates were installed and the physical box was not restarted after the updates were installed.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Performance
Hyper-V itself works quickly and rarely gave performance issues but this can be more attributed to the physical server specifications that the actual Hyper-V software in my opinion as Hyper-V technically just utilizes config files such as xml, and a data drive file (VHD, VHDX, etc) to perform its' duties.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Support Rating
I gave it a middle of the road rating - as far as getting direct help from Microsoft this never seems to happen. (Good luck getting ahold of them.) Getting help from online support forums is pretty much where I get all my help from. Hyper-V is used quite widely and anything you could need help with is out there and easily searched for on your favorite search engine.
Read full review
Training and usage support available
Read full review
In-Person Training
We had in person training from a third party and while it was very in depth it was at a beginner's level and by the time we received the training we had advanced past this level so it was monotonous and redundant at that point. It was good training though and would have provided a solid foundation for learning the rest of Hyper-V had I had it from the beginning.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Online Training
The training was easy to read and find. There were good examples in the training and it is plentiful if you use third party resources also. It is not perfect as sometimes you may have a specific question and have to spend time learning or in the rare case you get an error you might have to research that error code which could have multiple causes.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Implementation Rating
initial configuration of hyper-v is intuitive to anyone familiar with windows and roles for basic items like single server deployments, storage and basic networking. the majority of the problems were with implementing advanced features like high availability and more complex networking. There is a lot of documentation on how to do it but it is not seamless, even to experienced virtualization professionals.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Alternatives Considered
Oracle VirtualBox works just fine on workstations, for testing pourposes. But sometimes the virtual network conflicts with the physical cards on the workstation. VMware is the state of the art, but it costs more than gold, and you will have to license every Windows Server VM hosted on it. EC2 as well; it will require an individual Microsoft Windows Server licence.
Read full review
1) One-stop solution for all the complex network connectivity managed by [IBM Cloud Managed Istio]. 2) Nice dashboard to understand the flow. 3) Easy to troubleshoot the service if any one of the APIs is not responding. 4) We can integrate it with Azure Kubernetes service and other cloud provider Kubernetes services. 5) Monitoring the health of the pods can be easily configured and alerts can be triggered very accurately with this tool.
Read full review
Scalability
Nothing is perfect but Hyper-V does a great job of showing the necessary data to users to ensure that there is enough resources to perform essential functions. You can also select what fields show on the management console which is helpful for a quick glance. There are notifications that can be set up and if things go unnoticed and a Hyper-V server runs out of a resource it will safely and quickly shut down the VM's it needs to in order to ensure no Hardware failure or unnecessary data loss.
Read full review
No answers on this topic
Return on Investment
  • With Hyper-V implementing new software or rules on a test, beds take fewer resources and time which is a great bonus.
  • Virtual SAN management and Virtual Switch management make it easy to manage network and storage options.
  • Editing the disk option made us resize disks on the fly and saved us maintenance, production time, and costs.
Read full review
  • Management burden is reduced resulting in positive ROI.
  • Application is being seamlessly instrumented with good impact on business.
Read full review
ScreenShots