Hyper-V Reviews

I used to use VMWare and was certified but I have no justification to move off this platform. It is sufficient.

Each product had its pros and cons of course, I believe VMWare and VBox were very convenient in sharing VMs with other users, I did not try this feature with Hyper-V.
Hyper-V on the other hand was more stable to use than the alternatives (from my experience) and was somewhat easier to setup

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.

Hyper-V is backed by Microsoft which creates trust in the product. Moreover, the product is hosted on a physical data center hence provides data security confidence to the user/organizations using it.
Azure Virtual Machines are hosted on the cloud and best suitable to an organization that is moving towards the cloud movement.

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 more reliable, but I haven't noticed a difference.

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 WMware is definitely used more when it comes to larger IT shops. We a re a medium sized shop and VMware was a bit overkill when it came to our needs.

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 perform tasks such as disaster recover testing. The user interface of hyper-v combined with Microsoft failover clustering can be very confusing and difficult to validate. this can cause unintended outages due to misconfigure items such as cluster-aware storage.

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 centers, then Hyper-v should work really well. Citrix seems to be getting out of the server virtualziation market from what I can see.

Hyper-V is far superior to all other virtual host software I've ever used...PLUS IT IS FREE!!! Compared to Oracle Virtual Box, which is also free, Hyper-V is giving you enterprise-level security, management, features and deployment/failover functionality not found elsewhere. AND IT'S FREE!

I really do not have a bunch of experience with VMWare or VirtualBox which I know are two other well-known Virtualization software. I have used VirtualBox a few times when I was in college to learn other operating systems, but I don't recall them being as easy to get going and set up and Hyper-V was, but that might be biased because I have been using Hyper-V a lot in this current position I am working in.

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 virtualization.

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 service interruptions.
• Improving desktop business continuity.
• Providing access to applications regardless of location.
• Reduced time to deploy applications and user data.

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 industry, but it's a VERY expensive solution, and, ultimately, it doesn't offer that much in extra features for the money you spend.

Hyper-V is powerful and virtualizes Windows exceptionally well, with less tweaking. It is also cheaper, and allows our clients to budget more for more frequent expansion. Its only real competitor in my opinion is VMware, and that is because vCenter is much more intuitive than System Center. I would pick Hyper-V over Virtual Box or KVM any day of the week.

The main reason we are looking into Hyper-V is the cost of VMware licensing and support. We running a lot of hosts and the cost of renewal every year is very high when compared to freemium and all-inclusive because we have an SLA. And the functionality of Hyper-V is very good, a lot of companies like CSX are looking at it and running POC's.

I have used VMware in the past and I think Hyper-V compares favorably. I would probably not use Hyper-V for large-scale deployments, but for my needs, I just don't see where the added cost of VMware is necessary. Hyper-V gives me all the functionality I need for the cost of a Windows license and includes disaster recovery. When I first used Hyper-V I was dubious, but now that it's matured I find I really love using it.

I would say Hyper-V would be a peer to VMWare. Features and stability are solid and full-featured for both products. Each have unique shortfalls that the other does not. VirtualBox is a great tool for desktop or laptop virtualization. It is not targeted as much for the enterprise.

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 us.

Both products are similar but Hyper-V was included in our licensing with Microsoft.

On a Mac I have used both Parallels and VMware Fusion - both of which I like a lot, but they are Mac specific (and Hyper-V won't work on a Mac either). I have briefly used VMware Workstation on a PC, and found it very easy to use, but I do not believe it is nearly as feature rich or flexible as Hyper-V is. VMware VSphere on the other hand is a strong competitor to Hyper-V, but I have very little experience with it.

VMWare is superior to Hyper-V in a few areas. Live migration is much easier and better with VMWare, but VMWare is more expensive and you're subject to yearly maintenance and licensing fees.

Hyper-V competes very well with RHEV--not just on initial cost but also on capabilities and on learning. I know I've written a lot about learning, but it's significant when you have embraced a technology that is so difficult to use that no one wants to administer it. I've used every virtualization technology and some of them just aren't worth the trouble to build and to maintain. I can build up a Hyper-V environment in a very short amount of time on commodity hardware and support that environment from my living room. Other virtualization technologies aren't so forgiving. VMware is the ultimate in enterprise virtualization--no question about it, but it's very expensive and often a bit painful to administer. It does play well with open source storage solutions but its initial cost might send your head spinning. Hyper-V is easy to adopt because of its price and its ease of use.

Hyper-V is all around well-suited tool for almost any scenario when if you compare it with their respective competitors. It can be used for a single machine for testing purposes only, it can be applied for large-scale networks, either virtual or existing ones. Great set of tools sets it apart from any similar software on the market.

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 in our opinion didn't have a place in our systems - although some developers still use VirtualBox locally, most prefer to use Hyper-V.