We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Nutanix AHV Virtualization based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Hyper-V came out on top in this comparison. It is easy to manage and customize, and has very low resource usage, resulting in very little downtime. It is robust, stable, and provides many desired next-generation features. As a Microsoft product, it integrates well with many solutions in the Microsoft ecosystem, in addition to many other popular third-party solutions.
"It allows for quick deployment of servers and workloads."
"It is good for small installations."
"It is definitely the toughest competitor for VMware. It easily increases memory for our virtual machines."
"There are two very good things about this product including licensing and stability."
"The solution is highly stable."
"Hyper-V improved the infrastructure drastically, not only from a performance perspective but from a control/administration view as well."
"Hyper-V deployment is very user-friendly. It supports partial scripting and offers a UI for a smooth experience. There's also PowerShell scripting available for advanced users."
"The solution allows us to take advantage of our physical environment."
"It is a stable solution. I haven't faced stability issues in the solution."
"The most valuable part of Nutanix is its centralized management of everything."
"Nutanix's customer support is good, one of its biggest selling points."
"Simplicity is the most valuable feature."
"Nutanix AHV's most valuable feature is NetFlow."
"The most valuable aspect of this solution is that you don't need to pay for it, it's free, as opposed to paying for a VMware license."
"Using AHV, we have a built-in VR solution. It operates using a reduplication-based unique package transfer process."
"This product stands out for its user-friendly interface, intuitive design, and responsive UI. It offers AVH features comparable to Nutanix but at a more cost-effective price point."
"The solution is heavily reliant on Microsoft's active directory for authentication, for coordination between nodes. Therefore, it inherits all the issues that are within the active directory."
"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 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."
"Hyper-V systems need a lot of admin effort because security updates and monthly updates require rebooting after the update."
"In general, based on my little experience with Hyper-V, I see a lot of obstacles. I think it falls behind the other competitors."
"Sometimes it is a mess, and it is getting hanged. It should be something that could be easily fixed. It made us have to deal with fixing the bugs."
"Hyper-V serves its purpose, but some areas may not be as feature-rich as alternatives like VMware ESXi."
"The Hyper-V management console could be improved to make it easier. It should be a little bit more granular. Various virtual switches could also be improved to make virtual desk management slightly better. The replication could be improved slightly. The checkpoints or snapshots could be improved to make it a bit more transparent to the user."
"It would be better if the solution's replication to another site could be efficiently optimized."
"There are times when consultants, construction, or building firms need to use Beam but it can be difficult."
"When we need to share, publish, or encrypt something, we still need to perform it using the command line."
"Honestly, there's a lot to work on the product, especially for someone like me who has worked on VMware. VMware offers a significant level of customization when configuring virtual machines, and that level of detail is not as pronounced on Nutanix AHV Virtualization."
"Nutanix’s support team is not very efficient compared to others."
"The solution's pricing could be improved."
"My storage use is doubled; if I am creating a one TB virtual machine then my storage policy will take two TB from my cluster."
"The integration capabilities of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is an area with certain shortcomings that need improvement."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 44 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is rated 8.6. 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 Nutanix AHV Virtualization writes "Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, KVM and Citrix Hypervisor, whereas Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, KVM, Citrix Hypervisor and RHEV. See our Hyper-V vs. Nutanix AHV Virtualization 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.