We performed a comparison between Hyper-V, KVM, and Oracle VM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Proxmox, VMware, Microsoft and others in Server Virtualization Software."I find the ease of use the most valuable asset of the solution."
"The installation was straightforward."
"Hyper-V integrates well with other Microsoft solutions."
"The flexibility and API are the most valuable features. It helps us be able to integrate with other systems and then push data easily."
"It is very easy to install. It can be done in a day."
"The most valuable feature of the solution stems from how my company uses Hyper-V for replication."
"I have found the GUI user-friendly and having the solution be a Windows application makes it familiar to users."
"The implementation process is simple."
"The performance is great."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"Documentation and problem-solving troubleshooting are the most valuable features. Performance (when fine-tuned and with "special" HW) is awesome, equal to or more than other enterprise closed-source solutions."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"The solution is easy to use. You can spin one up when you need to and then shut it down."
"Oracle VM is user-friendly and facilitates compliance with Oracle Licensing, a feature not provided by competitors like VMware or Hyper-V. Oracle prefers customers to use their technology. It is also easy to implement, clone, and deploy machines with Oracle VM, making it a convenient solution."
"It is a scalable solution."
"Ability to patch with no downtime."
"It is simple and straightforward, and it will only require you one system integrator to do the job."
"The solution is very stable. I don't recall any bugs or glitches. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze."
"The most valuable aspect of the solution is the resource management from the OVM Manager."
"Virtualization platform that's easy to set up, and has good scalability and stability."
"The backup site could be better. We used to face a lot of issues, and we are looking to solve that now. We are in the process of moving all the infrastructure to the cloud. It could also use more integration on the management part. We also need more integration on the monitoring sites."
"The biggest problem with Hyper-V is that the virtual machines are mostly running on top of the Windows Server, so we often need to reboot the machine and virtual machines when updating the host level. That's why we prefer VMware. It's much easier to patch the host. Also, Hyper-V has security vulnerabilities. It's easy to attack and compromise the host."
"Hyper-V's management platform falls short in terms of scalability, especially when handling multiple Hyper-V servers. VMware has a central console to pull in all your VM servers, so you can easily manage them all through one console. You can manage servers in Hyper-V's admin centers, but it's not as scalable. It's doable with a couple of Hyper-V servers, but it becomes harder to manage when you get over two or three Hyper-V servers."
"Some of the interfaces need improvements, like the virtual switch or virtual VLAN interfaces."
"The the only challenge for us was moving existing physical machines to virtual machines."
"In an upcoming release, they can improve by having better cloud integration. We are all moving towards the clouds and the integration is only through the Azure Stack, there should be tools built in to move the VMs natively to the cloud and infrastructure. Additionally, they could provide some form of multi-cloud integration."
"The management interface is in need of the biggest improvement."
"The interface could be more user friendly. In addition, the documentation and security could use improvement."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"The solution is an outdated Xen-based application."
"With our current OVM Manager version, migrating a VM from one repository to another repository was really complicated, especially editing and manually matching the configuration."
"If you do a gap analysis between VMware and Oracle VM, you can't do VM Snapshot. That's one thing you can't do. It's a sort of a snapshot, but it's not really Snapshot technology. It requires that you're running on CFS-2."
"Something that could be improved are the snapshots that go in the ZFS Storage. If you want to enjoy Oracle VM, you will definitely want it to go together with ZFS Storage to maximize on the snapshot facility."
"Its database management features could be better."
"There is no memory over-subscription and CPU over-subscription. That has to be improved in terms of Oracle VM perspective. The other leading virtualizing software solutions have this feature."
"The solution needs more features and flexibility in terms of communicating with other platforms. If it had that, it would be the perfect product."
"The solution is at its end of life and is about to be discontinued."