We performed a comparison between Citrix Hypervisor, Oracle VM VirtualBox, and Proxmox VE based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."We can easily migrate VMs from one host to another."
"The continued uptime of our virtual machines is good."
"Citrix is easy to use and is stable."
"The initial setup is easy."
"What I like the most is the support of the GPU Graphics and the VM Live migration."
"Scripting can automate procedures."
"The ability to move a virtual machine while it is running is a big advantage."
"This solution allows the end users to clone, start, stop, or remotely control their VMs."
"It is a stable product."
"The versatility, simplicity, and stability of the product are it's most valuable features."
"The cloning is a very useful tool."
"The configuration and installation is pretty straightforward."
"The solution has high performance and is easy to use."
"The flexibility and the closed platform, so it allows you to run in multiple platforms, Windows, Linux, Macintosh."
"Oracle VM Virtualbox is easy to use and does not require much training."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its stability."
"Proxmox VE has many containers. You need to download the image and do basic configuration, after which it is operational within a few minutes. The solution provides many containers that are light in use and don't use a lot of memory. You don't have to spend a lot of resources."
"The most valuable feature of Proxmox VE is the linked clone."
"The tool has very good performance."
"KVM hypervisor is a valuable part of the solution."
"It's very user-friendly."
"It is easier to balance loads across hypervisors if a given container or virtual machine uses more resources than its peers."
"We had issues with this solution when it comes to resources. We have officially created four to five PMs and it just continues to make more resources even though they are delivered in the main post mode."
"The most valuable feature is the ease of deployment."
"It needs to have a more robust backup solution."
"The licensing costs are too high on the solution. They should work to make the costs more reasonable."
"The solution should be more flexible and allow for greater customization."
"The solution is only in English. It would be ideal if it was in Portuguese."
"There are several areas that need improvement including the stability of the networking stack and networking management."
"Network management needs improvement because it is not very stable."
"The self-service user portal needs to be more granular and be more customizable."
"The product could be faster and licensing options could be improved."
"The solution is not flexible."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"The solution could be more user-friendly."
"It could improve slightly with enhanced reporting capabilities that show the current status of the network."
"Oracle VMs don't have a solid web interface of their own. This is an area where Oracle is lagging behind. Now, we use headless servers, install Oracle VMs, and manage them remotely. We could use phpVirtual Box, but it is a third-party solution. A lot of people contribute to it, and it's not authenticated by Oracle. As a result, I don't find it to be a good option. Therefore, I would like to see Oracle offer an extension pack or a licensed version that fixes this problem."
"I find the solution to be incredibly unstable, constantly falling over and not working properly."
"It has some issues when you have some weird device drivers. For instance, when you have a weird sound driver working on your machine, and the VirtualBox needs to output the sound of the virtual machine into the sound driver of the physical machine, the bare metal, it doesn't work too well. If you tweak lots of drivers and play around with the different kinds of drivers and machines, you will probably break something. I have not played with it too much and maybe it already supports it, but it would probably be good to have the ability to use a container from the virtual machine environment instead of spinning off a complete virtual machine. There are other tools for that. On Linux, you have a DXE, LXC framework, and you have Docker as well. Docker is good because it is multi-platform, and you can run Docker on pretty much anything, even different processors, but it would be good if we had a VirtualBox running on it while spinning off containers instead of full virtual machines. The other thing that will become important, and I'm pretty sure that they are thinking about it as well is that there's this new hardware platform that Apple is releasing, which is an ARM-based new chip. So, VirtualBox will probably have to work on ARM-based CPUs as well."
"It should have the functionality where if I move the mouse away from one screen, the context changes automatically."
"Currently, there are several features inaccessible through the API, necessitating the use of either the WebUI or the command line interface."
"The only disadvantage of Proxmox VE is that it is a young solution so it does have some bugs."
"I can't speak to any improvements. It is not lacking features."
"Lacking in enterprise features."
"There should be a helm feature for managing Kubernetes ports directly from the Proxmox traffic interface."
"Backup and recovery could be better. It's a bit problematic. If you're not well-versed with Linux, it tends to be a bit of a challenge when setting up and recovering. It's not really GUI-based, and if you're not a good Linux user, it becomes a bit difficult. In the next release, I would like to have something like Hyper-V's Data Protection Manager, where you could do an offsite backup and keep a copy. I haven't seen that incorporated yet, but I'm sure they will do that."
"There are some things that need to be done using the command-line interface, and these should be moved into the web-based interface."
"We find it difficult to find the root cause of the issues."
