Hyper-V vs. Windows Server

Overview
ProductRatingMost Used ByProduct SummaryStarting Price
Hyper-V
Score 8.2 out of 10
N/A
N/A
$24.95
per month
Windows Server
Score 8.5 out of 10
N/A
N/AN/A
Pricing
Hyper-VWindows Server
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-VWindows Server
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-VWindows Server
Considered Both Products
Hyper-V
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V comes with Windows Server. It works well, is easy to use and administer, and does everything we need. I see no reason to purchase additional products to do what Hyper-V already does. Plus, the option to eventually use Azure without much fuss makes it a simple choice for …
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
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
Hyper-V is much less expensive than VMware, which is always a plus. It is also more friendly to new administrators trying to pick up the system for the first time. With that said I would consider VMware to be slightly more enterprise friendly when it comes to features and …
Chose Hyper-V
I've used VMware and Hyper-V. Due to Hyper-V being included with Windows for no extra charge, it makes it the default option for us. Why spend money for a 3rd-party solution when Microsoft provides one for free with the purchase of their server operating systems? It's also …
Chose Hyper-V
I have used VMware Vsphere for a few edge cases such as Mac virtualization. I found the GUI to have far more options, but also found the documentation less concise. I've also used Virtual Box and VMware Fusion for desktop virtualization. Both are good and have the advantage of …
Chose Hyper-V
I have mainly experience with VMWare. Though the two are making sure to follow each other's innovations and VMWare was on the market first and therefore had a big headstart, I currently prefer Hyper-V. One big reason is since most of our customers use Windows Server, Hyper-V is …
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V being 'free' was the main reason we went for it here. We gave VMware Workstation/Server a try when initially evaluating virtualisation options, but Hyper-V won out for ease of integration into our existing environment. VirtualBox was more of a 'plug in' solution which …
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V is less advanced and less stable than VMware but it is also a lot less expensive. You get a lot of features from the start with Hyper-V where with VMware you need to add quite a bit of products (vCenter, etc.) to get basic features like clustering.
Chose Hyper-V
As already described, my impression is that Hyper-V is lacking in features that are offered by other alternatives (albeit, at a potentially lower price point).
Chose Hyper-V
We are still primarily a VMware shop, but Hyper-V supports 40% of our environment. That may change over time if Hyper-V keeps getting easier to use and more third party support grows.
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V can host more memory, CPUs per host, and logical processors than can VMware's vSphere, and while it is well integrated in my opinion to the Windows OS, it has significant drawbacks that VMware does not. You can better manage and balance storage needs with VMware than …
Chose Hyper-V
Only thing I miss was the passthough of usb devices. We were already a windows shop so we went with that over vmware.
Windows Server
Chose Windows Server
Windows Server is more cost-effective and skills are easier to find to support the products. The deployment and management of the product can be automated with Microsoft SCCM. In my opinion, Linux seems to be more secured but takes more time and effort to learn than Windows …
Chose Windows Server
Windows Server is the most Enterprise/Business server around, easy to deploy and configure and to co-exist with other servers. Most if not every other server technology is usually very good for a very specific purpose but fail in the coexistence and integration when compared …
Chose Windows Server
Easy to use server operating system as compared to other operating systems (OS) which might require you to do a configuration via a terminal. Installation and managing of server - client applications are easy to use. Less load on server depending on the number of users …
Chose Windows Server
HP-UX is a great product, but it has a much higher learning curve than Windows server. Even if you're familiar with Linux/Unix, HP-UX will still be very challenging if you've never used it before. HP-UX commands can be different than even other Linux/Unix commands. Whereas …
Chose Windows Server
Windows vs. OS X. Windows scales so much better here. OS X in a server role is ok for one or two servers but does not have the enterprise feature set or associated complementary software products that Microsoft Windows has.

Windows vs. Linux. Both have their advantages. These …
Chose Windows Server
The only other server level OS I've ever used was OS/2, and there's really no point in trying to compare against it anymore.
Features
Hyper-VWindows Server
Server Virtualization
Comparison of Server Virtualization features of Product A and Product B
Hyper-V
7.6
73 Ratings
5% below category average
Windows Server
-
Ratings
Virtual machine automated provisioning7.261 Ratings00 Ratings
Management console7.573 Ratings00 Ratings
Live virtual machine backup8.265 Ratings00 Ratings
Live virtual machine migration7.367 Ratings00 Ratings
Hypervisor-level security7.767 Ratings00 Ratings
Operating System
Comparison of Operating System features of Product A and Product B
Hyper-V
-
Ratings
Windows Server
8.0
1 Ratings
5% below category average
File Management00 Ratings10.01 Ratings
Software Application Management00 Ratings9.01 Ratings
System Update Frequency00 Ratings5.01 Ratings
Operating System Security00 Ratings8.01 Ratings
Best Alternatives
Hyper-VWindows Server
Small Businesses
DigitalOcean Droplets
DigitalOcean Droplets
Score 9.4 out of 10
Ubuntu
Ubuntu
Score 8.7 out of 10
Medium-sized Companies
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
Score 10.0 out of 10
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
Score 9.2 out of 10
Enterprises
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
VMware vSOM (discontinued)
Score 10.0 out of 10
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
Score 9.2 out of 10
All AlternativesView all alternativesView all alternatives
User Ratings
Hyper-VWindows Server
Likelihood to Recommend
7.5
(72 ratings)
8.2
(63 ratings)
Likelihood to Renew
8.0
(6 ratings)
9.1
(6 ratings)
Usability
8.0
(9 ratings)
8.2
(7 ratings)
Availability
9.0
(1 ratings)
7.3
(1 ratings)
Performance
9.0
(1 ratings)
5.5
(1 ratings)
Support Rating
7.5
(16 ratings)
6.4
(19 ratings)
In-Person Training
8.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Online Training
9.0
(1 ratings)
-
(0 ratings)
Implementation Rating
5.0
(3 ratings)
9.1
(4 ratings)
Configurability
9.0
(1 ratings)
9.1
(2 ratings)
Contract Terms and Pricing Model
-
(0 ratings)
4.5
(1 ratings)
Ease of integration
7.0
(1 ratings)
9.1
(1 ratings)
Product Scalability
9.0
(1 ratings)
9.1
(1 ratings)
Professional Services
-
(0 ratings)
6.4
(1 ratings)
Vendor post-sale
9.0
(1 ratings)
7.3
(1 ratings)
Vendor pre-sale
9.0
(1 ratings)
8.2
(1 ratings)
User Testimonials
Hyper-VWindows Server
Likelihood to Recommend
Microsoft
Hyper-V makes a lot of sense in scenarios that will support several Windows Server-based OS virtual machines. The only limitation of those licensed VMs is the hardware that hosts the Hyper-V role. If you need to deploy many servers running Windows Server OS, it is worth the price. Hyper-V also does a great job of managing the server host's computational resources, including memory, CPU, network, and storage.
Read full review
Microsoft
Windows is well-suited for environments where caretakers are not as technical as they are in larger environments. It is also well-suited for small environments where a small number of server instances can provide a complete enterprise management solution, including directory services (AD), networking services (DHCP, DNS), file server services, printing, and hosting of applications that the enterprise relies on. It is also fairly good at providing hybrid-cloud support (most especially with Azure).
Read full review
Pros
Microsoft
  • 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
Microsoft
  • Backup of workstations & itself - reliably, consistently, with Bare-Metal Restore and deduplication
  • File management and Security on a per file/folder/user basis is simple and fully done through an easy GUI
  • DNS, DHCP server functions are easy to configure using the built-in GUI
Read full review
Cons
Microsoft
  • 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
Microsoft
  • Microsoft needs to minimize the update frequency by making the product more secure. It can become very exhausting trying to keep updated if you don't have a dedicated support team. It can become challenging where the business is unable to allow downtime for reboots as part of the update process.
  • Prone to security and audit vulnerabilities.
  • The operating system needs more CPU and memory resources compared to other options such as Linux.
  • Understanding the licensing model can be abit confusing.
  • Comes with a standard firewall, but not the most secured one available. Would suggest using a more secured firewall as part of your antivirus software.
  • Due to the number of vulnerabilities and the operating system being a target for hackers, anti-virus software is a must.
Read full review
Likelihood to Renew
Microsoft
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
Microsoft
I've carefully reviewed the servers and services currently running on Windows Server 2012, and given the opportunity would renew them as is going forward. There are two systems I currently have in place, one is a very large Linux implementation for a large ecommerce site, and one is a very large backup solution front ended by FTP servers running Linux. Neither are well suited for Windows, but the overall network infrastructure is and will be Windows Server for the foreseeable future.
Read full review
Usability
Microsoft
It is quite intuitive. Junior techs are able to provision and administrate Hyper-V virtual server infrastructure with little to no additional training. Documentation from Microsoft is easily avaliable and decently well written. Hyper-V is reliable and does what it is supposed to. Can be admin from an intuitive gui, or aoutmated with extensive powershell.
Read full review
Microsoft
There are simply too many different parts of Windows Server to make it a cohesive piece of software. While some of the newer features found in Windows Server 2012 and 2016 have nice UIs that are logically laid out, there are enough parts of the system that is still based on old code with clunky UIs and confusing options to make Windows Server a particularly user-friendly experience.
Read full review
Reliability and Availability
Microsoft
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
Microsoft
some times server hungs and user sessions were busy to connect
Read full review
Performance
Microsoft
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
Microsoft
need to improve the performance more
Read full review
Support Rating
Microsoft
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
Microsoft
Microsoft's support is hugely wide-ranging from articles online to having to contact them directly for the more serious issues. In recent years when I have contacted them directly, I have found the support o be excellent as I have found myself connected to very knowledgeable people in the field in which I needed the support. The online support available is vast and I tend to find most of the time that there is always someone out there who has had the same issue as me in the past and knows something about how to resolve it! This is the advantage of using industry standard and long-established systems such as Windows Server.
Read full review
In-Person Training
Microsoft
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
Microsoft
it was my senior who trained Windows Server features and i was satisfied
Read full review
Online Training
Microsoft
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
Microsoft
it was recorded session and useful
Read full review
Implementation Rating
Microsoft
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
Microsoft
Make sure that you have detailed processes in place for every server instance you plan to install/upgrade, if possible get the base OS loaded and Windows Updates applied ahead of time, and if using a VM take a snapshot prior to installing each role, as well as along the way.
Read full review
Alternatives Considered
Microsoft
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 control options for virtual machines. Another advantage VMware has is it does not need a dedicated os GUI base installation only needs small resources and can easily install on any host.
Read full review
Microsoft
I didn't use any other system which gives the same functionality and I am not aware of any. The full integration between all components and especially the ability to integrate mail via Exchange or even via a hybrid setup with the Ofice365 cloud, including the ability to directly manage the cloud from the server, using Power Shell, is something I didn't see anywhere else.
Read full review
Contract Terms and Pricing Model
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
need to reduce a lot
Read full review
Scalability
Microsoft
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
Microsoft
yes i completely agree multi deployment
Read full review
Professional Services
Microsoft
No answers on this topic
Microsoft
i like the professional service but need to improve
Read full review
Return on Investment
Microsoft
  • Massively positive impact on expenses in my company by reducing our storage needs drastically. We were able to reallocate the budget to upgrading our primary Hyper-V server with pure enterprise SSD's as we reduced the storage needs by over 50% and by this we increased performance by over 400%.
  • We have deployed more than 8 servers with EXTREMELY minimal cost using Hyper-V and not requiring another hardware server to host it. We have leveraged our hardware resources in our 2 servers so well that we were able to add many new services, not in place prior, as we did not have the servers to host them. Now with Hyper-V, we deployed many more servers in VM's, purchased OS's & CAL's, but did not need any hardware, which is the greatest expense of all.
  • With Hyper-V, our ROI was reduced from 36-40 months on our primary server, down to only 13 months by reducing costs of storage and adding so many more servers, by calculating the "would-be" cost of those servers that was avoided by creating them in Hyper-V.
Read full review
Microsoft
  • Ability to keep all files in one place and give access to users makes file management easy to control.
  • VPN Access to off-site users is a plus.
  • Secure access to on-site SQL data from our accounting and estimating data is a plus.
Read full review
ScreenShots