We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and IBM PowerVM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Virtualization Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The restore function of the virtual server is valuable to me."
"The performance is very good."
"The solution is stable."
"It is easy to use, and it is stable. It is a good solution."
"It is good for small installations."
"It makes it easier to deploy service. All service tends to migrate onto the server house without having problems now. It is hardware independent."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from how my company uses Hyper-V for replication."
"I like that Hyper-V is like a virtual environment. I like to use VMware because of the resource requirements. In Sri Lanka, most of the customers use the Hyper-V GUI. When installing the interface with the Windows version, we also install the Hyper-V feature on the server. This is because they require more features and memory. There are so many features that they have embedded in Hyper-V that are useful."
"The case fileserver on the web server is the most valuable feature."
"The valuable feature of the solution is the technical aspects, focusing on elements like processor infinity."
"PowerVM's most valuable features include swift optimisation and real-time migration."
"The most valuable feature of IBM PowerVM is the performance of the database workload."
"The most valuable features in this solution are you do not get degradation in the performance like you could get in other solutions. There is a physical adapter that is better than a virtual one and you can assign adapters to a VM."
"IBM PowerVM's most valuable feature is stability."
"It is a complete solution."
"You can increase resources with it automatically."
"I would love to see other options for connecting VMs to large data storage."
"We have our cluster connected to a Dell EMC VNX (SAN). The Hyper-V nodes are on Cisco UCS blades, and everything is interconnected via fiber. I attempted to use a virtual Fibre Channel connection to present a SAN volume to a VM but was not able to make that work."
"The solution should be compatible with different systems."
"There is a hard limitation of 20 gigs per file with Dropbox, so you've got to overcome that by chunking the zip files into something smaller and manageable."
"The management of Hyper-V could improve, there is a lot to improve in that area."
"When it comes to Hyper-V the worst thing is it's based on the Windows operating system. For the installation of Hyper-V, you're supposed to install the right operating system. For me, it's strange."
"It would be better if it demanded less memory. Once you have allocated those memory spaces for the installed server, fewer resources are left to allocate for the Hyper-V virtual environment. That's the drawback with that. For example, once you install Windows 10, and let's say Windows 2019, Windows 2019 will take at least 10 GB of memory. If a customer has only 16 GB of RAM on the system, they think of installing Hyper-V. Because when you have windows 2019 or something else, they give two free Hyper-V virtual licenses. But we can't because there's not enough memory. We can, however, install this as a VMS. But this UI isn't that user-friendly for most customers. They like to have a user interface with VMI, and it's not easy when you install VMI. It would also be better if they can improve their core Hyper-V version to be a bit more familiar and user-friendly with its interface. I think it would be much easier. We had a few issues with the VM Hyper-V virtual network. Once you have such issues, it's very difficult to find out where they came from. They had such issues, and we had to resolve the system again. But other than that, if it's useful and keeps working nicely, it will work very nicely even if something happens. But it's very hectic and challenging to find out where it's happening. In the next release, it would be better to control this data store part in a manageable way. This is because once we install and create a Hyper-V machine, it goes everywhere. It would be better if it had a single location and a single folder with a heartbeat and virtual machine information. You can just go forward, and the data store and everything are going into one place like the C drive. But something always goes fast, or everything gets lost if the customer doesn't manually change the direction of where the virtual hard drive routes, the more serious the problem. It would be better if they could merge all that together. This includes the virtual machine and the virtual hard drive in the same folder when creating the virtual machine. I think that it would be much easier to manage and in case something happens. Technical support also could be better."
"When one server or one virtual machine fails, or one is turned off, the virtualization stops, and we have to initiate again with human intervention."
"To make it a ten, I would like for them to add automation and configuration tools in order to help use the manager."
"The solution should be advanced to fit with the container constantly."
"As understand it, IBM sells all its hardware to Lenovo, and only PCs servers are managed by IBM. It's uncertain how much longer IBM will continue in this way, especially with the current trend of transitioning from on-premises to cloud and hybrid models. The market is evolving. Given this market shift, it's essential to identify areas for improvement. IBM has introduced the PowerVM Series, including Linux, which is a positive step. However, customers are already moving towards x86 servers due to cost considerations. The cost of PowerVM compared to x86 servers appears to be a significant factor."
"The hardware licensing model could be improved because the licensing model is a bit different from the standard hardware procured."
"The program has very limited solutions for the virtualization of containers"
"PowerVM's platform build and performance could be improved."
"The interface is not user-friendly in places, so it could use some improvement."
"The product's pricing could be less expensive compared to other competitors."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while IBM PowerVM is ranked 9th in Server Virtualization Software with 25 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while IBM PowerVM is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "It's a low-cost solution that enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM PowerVM writes "A stable system for high-end data processing with a great support structure". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, KVM and OpenVZ, whereas IBM PowerVM is most compared with VMware vSphere, KVM, Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI), Oracle VM VirtualBox and Proxmox VE. See our Hyper-V vs. IBM PowerVM report.
See our list of best Server Virtualization Software vendors.
We monitor all Server Virtualization Software 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.
