We performed a comparison between Hyper-V, KVM, 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."I value the simplicity of configuration because it has worked as expected for my client."
"With each update, the security of this solution just gets better and better. It is very stable."
"The most valuable feature is that it's an end-to-end solution."
"It is very easy to install. It can be done in a day."
"I have found the GUI user-friendly and having the solution be a Windows application makes it familiar to users."
"The solution is easy to configure."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is the storage virtualization."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The tool's most valuable feature is backup. The product makes it easy to manage virtual machines. Other tools require third-party applications like VMware and vSphere. However, KVM doesn't require these applications."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"I think nine out of the ten supercomputers in the world use Linux KVM, so I think that attests to the fact that it is a scalable product."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"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."
"The solution has high availability."
"The vMotion in particular I think is the most valuable because this feature provides migrations of virtual machines in case you want to run do maintenance."
"Technical support is quite good and very responsive."
"In terms of overall features, vSphere's stability stands out on top. Not only is it highly stable, but we're also able to have a quick backup server on standby."
"This solution is very stable. It's scalable and simple to set up."
"The scalability of the solution is good. You can scale up to maximum levels."
"It is a very mature solution that is easy to use and flexible."
"It's very transparent and independent."
"Hyper-V serves its purpose, but some areas may not be as feature-rich as alternatives like VMware ESXi."
"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."
"We've had many issues with Hyper-V's stability, including resource crunches and memory leakage."
"Disaster recovery capabilities are the primary choice for improvement."
"Enhanced visibility and reporting capabilities are desired for better insights and analysis."
"It needs additional administration and monitoring capabilities."
"The area revolving around operations in the product has certain shortcomings where improvements are required."
"I am using this solution with E-Notes. I heard that there will be future improvements in integration of the E-notes systems. This would be very helpful."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment. The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison. I would like to see FT features in KVM."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"NSX is a product of VMware vSphere and it would be nice to see the solution have full integration capabilities with it."
"It would be nice if it had auto-scaling, no need to select CPU or select database size. Let it auto-scale, let it use the features that VMware has, instead of having to preselect."
"There should be a bit more flexibility in terms of the hardware we can use with the product."
"The UI of VMware could use some improvements, especially in dark mode."
"OS templates should be readily available, so there is no need to get an OS separately. Only the activation part should be different, which is not presently available due to the need to get the OS from a different location, then create VMs."
"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.""
"There are some limitations with the solution regarding migrating."
"The HR proxy is actually a little bit tricky to install and setup."