We performed a comparison between Citrix Hypervisor, Oracle VM VirtualBox, and VMware vSphere based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."Scripting can automate procedures."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is very fast. It also works very well for physically small servers."
"Citrix Hypervisor integrates easily and I can manage the infrastructure better. If I need to take a machine down to expand the hard drive, I do not have to physically be here. I do not need to order new equipment or new hard drives. I can shut it down, increase the drive space and bring it back up."
"The compatibility of the solution is its most valuable feature. It's compatible on almost every cloud these days."
"The continued uptime of our virtual machines is good."
"Citrix Hypervisor is simple to use."
"The price is the solution's most valuable feature."
"I've found the following features to be the most valuable: user personalization layer, app layering, provisioning, and notification services for integration between different domains."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its stability."
"The pause feature is valuable. I can pause, which is something that not all hypervisors allow. The snapshot feature is also valuable."
"Oracle VM Virtualbox is easy to use and does not require much training."
"The configuration and installation is pretty straightforward."
"The flexibility and the closed platform, so it allows you to run in multiple platforms, Windows, Linux, Macintosh."
"This product is very user-friendly and easy to use."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the ability to manage multiple operating systems through one application."
"It's a pretty good product in terms of monitoring."
"The most valuable features are the vMotion, the storage vMotion, the DRS, and the high availability function."
"As an end-user, I would say it has allowed us to have the flexibility of moving around our workloads on different machines, and not having to worry if anything is down."
"The most valuable features are the virtualization and the performance on the virtualization platform."
"The most valuable feature would be the slight changes they've made to VMFork instant cloning, in which they have abstracted out the parent-child relationship in cloning, in which certain features, like HA and DRS, are now usable on that parent virtual machine. That is wildly amazing and something that wasn't available until 6.7."
"It's easy to use and very user-friendly."
"The virtualization, the remote management user interface, and the web console are most valuable."
"I don't see any challenges in using this product."
"The provisioning setup of VMs is good."
"The interface has to be updated."
"Network management needs improvement because it is not very stable."
"I would like the possibility of updating the hypervisor by applying security patches."
"The product could be faster and licensing options could be improved."
"It needs to have a more robust backup solution."
"The self-service user portal needs to be more granular and be more customizable."
"The solution is too expensive and people are kind of moving away from Citrix. It's starting to become a problem. It is a primary reason that while we are rebuilding we're going to seek out open-source solutions."
"The solution is only in English. It would be ideal if it was in Portuguese."
"The communications setup lags. It does not connect properly so the batching and networking is a bit slow."
"It should have the functionality where if I move the mouse away from one screen, the context changes automatically."
"The solution is not flexible."
"Basically, the GUI and command-line interface need improvement."
"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."
"The solution should have more enterprise features, like migration, high availability storage, disaster recovery, and the ability to deploy to enterprise-scale usage. They should not just offer desktop usage."
"Having live migrations to move a running server to other hardware would be great."
"It could improve slightly with enhanced reporting capabilities that show the current status of the network."
"I would like to see DRS for the GPU machines."
"I would like to see a more automated upgrade, where you take the other products into account, so you can upgrade the entire VMware stack from a single interface."
"There needs to be more integration overall. That would be quite helpful."
"Reducing the cost of vSphere would be an improvement."
"Given that I've been using version seven, it seems that some of the bugs I faced during that version have already been addressed in subsequent updates. Although I haven't personally tested them yet, it appears that these issues have been resolved. In version seven, there was a problem with the network interface not responding due to certain configurations not being properly filtered. However, in version eight, this requirement has been minimized, so the mentioned bug is less likely to occur. Instead of solely addressing these fixes in newer versions, it might be beneficial for them to consider applying these improvements to the older versions as well. This approach could prevent users from feeling compelled to upgrade to version eight solely to avoid encountering the issue, and instead provide updates for version seven users."
"I would like to see a little bit more visibility regarding errors. When an error does occur, there are times where it says "Unknown error" or something to that effect, and it doesn't necessarily give you a lot of metrics. If you go online and you give a description of it, normally the VMware forums can help you find out what it is, but I'd like to see a little bit more visibility from the software itself regarding what's going on: "This went wrong, this is why.""
"It would be good if the licensing cost of the solution could be cheaper."
"There should be a bit more flexibility in terms of the hardware we can use with the product."
