Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

HPE Serviceguard vs Windows Server Failover Clustering comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

HPE Serviceguard
Ranking in High Availability Clustering
5th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Windows Server Failover Clu...
Ranking in High Availability Clustering
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of September 2025, in the High Availability Clustering category, the mindshare of HPE Serviceguard is 13.1%, up from 12.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Windows Server Failover Clustering is 22.1%, down from 32.9% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
High Availability Clustering Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Windows Server Failover Clustering22.1%
HPE Serviceguard13.1%
Other64.8%
High Availability Clustering
 

Featured Reviews

AH
The solution's most valuable feature is the ability to create a Mount Point Package
They should continue with the certificate for the consequent year as well. They must keep the product up and running for a long time as it is currently static. There are a lot of challenges as well. Sometimes, the mount point gets lost depending on link failure or census problems. The solution works on a standard script, but it has many tech issues to fix with the OS. You have to keep checking network connectivity, OS connectivity, etc. If any of these fails, then you do not get the certificate.
SK
A scalable solution to create clusters, and auto-assign a master
The solution has some downsides related to the election mechanism, meaning that if the servers or the cluster services or cluster server elect one server, they will attribute to that server an object that is called a quorum. This quorum does the server or the service that has that quorum, it is taken as the master. So when you have, for example, something happens in your data centers like a power outage or an unexpected shutdown, and you can't start the master server what sometimes will happen, is since the shutdown was unexpected, the cluster didn't have time to do some post configurations before the extension of the shutdown of the servers, sometimes that quorum can't be removed from the crashed master and the cluster wants stuff. This is part of the architecture of this service, the Failover service. So sometimes we face this type of problem. In the past, we had a lot of power outages and when we started after, our server, we faced this problem. Meaning that the cluster won't stop because one of the servers, the master crashed, and they didn't want to start. So we need to access and do some line configurations so that we will force the cluster to elect a new master and ignore the crashed one.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"HPE Serviceguard is stable, it has high availability for production."
"The solution's scalability is excellent."
"The solution switches over to another server in case the server goes down."
"Some of the advantages, are it can give you the ability to choose."
"The most valuable features of Windows Server Failover Clustering are the ISS, failover cluster, and DC."
"The product is stable."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to easily create clusters supporting geo-redundancy."
"The reliability is pretty good."
 

Cons

"Many customers want virtualization or high availability but not on HPE Serviceguard with the appliance."
"They must keep the product up and running for a long time as it is currently static."
"The standard, non-enterprise technical support could be improved."
"They could drop the price or improve the cost of the hyper-converged component of it all. Right now, licensing is expensive and complex."
"The tool's pricing is high."
"The product should be less dependent on network configuration."
"There are times when we do the system security updates and have to restart the server which is difficult because we need to wait until the end of the day or when working hours are finished. There are service updates that have a requirement to restart the system and it is not convenient."
"The stability is good, except for when something crashes or shuts down unexpectedly, then it can be a bit difficult to reestablish the service in a stable state."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The solution is available at a high price. I rate it as a two for pricing."
"I would rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten."
"We are on an annual license to use this solution."
"The functionality is included in Windows Server licences."
"So if you acquire the Windows server license, you will also get all of the Windows services licenses."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which High Availability Clustering solutions are best for your needs.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Retailer
9%
Real Estate/Law Firm
9%
Financial Services Firm
8%
Outsourcing Company
8%
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
8%
Government
8%
Comms Service Provider
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business5
Midsize Enterprise2
Large Enterprise3
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Windows Server Failover Clustering?
There is no extra charge except a service fee for some professional work. I rate the product’s pricing a five out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.
What needs improvement with Windows Server Failover Clustering?
The solution uses external storage, while third-party solutions don't use external storage. They're using a mirror to create a partition on each server and synchronize the data in the background. I...
What is your primary use case for Windows Server Failover Clustering?
We use the solution for warehouse purposes. We built an SQL server on the solution.
 

Also Known As

Serviceguard, HP Serviceguard
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

RI-Solution, FAW-Volkswagen, Pella, Octo Telematics, Kenya Ports Authority
Karl-Franzens-Universit_t Graz, NAV CANADA, Magnachip, ólectricit_ de France, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Bank Alfalah Ltd., Local Government Association of Queensland
Find out what your peers are saying about HPE Serviceguard vs. Windows Server Failover Clustering and other solutions. Updated: September 2025.
867,370 professionals have used our research since 2012.