We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Nutanix AHV Virtualization based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Hyper-V came out on top in this comparison. It is easy to manage and customize, and has very low resource usage, resulting in very little downtime. It is robust, stable, and provides many desired next-generation features. As a Microsoft product, it integrates well with many solutions in the Microsoft ecosystem, in addition to many other popular third-party solutions.
"The solution is stable."
"One of the most valuable features of Hyper-V is ease to use."
"I like that Hyper-V comes for free with Windows Server. You don't need to buy the license, and you only have to pay for the management aspect in System Center."
"The solution is stable and the cost is reasonable."
"I like that it's easy to use."
"Hyper-V is much easier to deploy because Hyper-V is already installed inside Windows Server OS. You only need to turn on Hyper-V as a service, and then you can use it. The most convenient thing about Hyper-V is the operating system."
"Microsoft has documentation that is easy to find, helpful, and readily available."
"We've probably seen a 50 percent speed increase on our SQL server. Hyper-V has also significantly reduced our downtimes with faster boot-up and reboot. If we have to reboot a server, there is maybe two or three minutes of downtime. When we were on a bare-metal server, it could be five to ten minutes due to the total boot time."
"It's user-friendly."
"The most valuable feature of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is the user-friendly environment. The integration, implementation, and training for the solution are good."
"You don't need any other instruments for control, AHV. You only need to look at the prism to control all infrastructure."
"The solution is stable."
"Using AHV, we have a built-in VR solution. It operates using a reduplication-based unique package transfer process."
"If we want to move the virtual machine from one host to another, it's simple, straightforward, and stable."
"The feature that has had the most impact is data locality. That is a feature that makes Nutanix different from other hypervisors. It helps us to get application performance that is probably double what we got with the legacy, three-tier architecture."
"Nutanix's customer support is good, one of its biggest selling points."
"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."
"The technical support is good but it could improve by being faster."
"If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult."
"The operating system is very, very heavy."
"I would like Microsoft to put more effort into the Admin Center interface and make it much easier. It is customizable, but you have to be a PowerShell expert to customize these things. That is a limitation."
"When one server or one virtual machine fails, or one is turned off, the virtualization stops, and we have to initiate again with human intervention."
"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."
"Failure capabilities are insufficient for disaster recovery."
"If we have to opt for a high level of capacity planning and need more analytics—like deciding on new purchases or budgeting, or if we need additional resources in the near future—we need to pay for Prism Central. I would suggest that Nutanix improve a bit on the analytics part of Prism Element so we can calculate those kinds of things within that flavor."
"The solution can be pricey."
"VMware does tend to have more features than AHV. It's more of the leader in this space."
"The solution could improve the call logging system to HPE, it is a bit tedious."
"I would like to see more automation of Day One operations, such as DRS, and HA."
"An improvement would be for Nutanix AHV to support VMDK, AOS, Hyper-V, and VMware."
"The initial installation is complex. It took approximately four days."
"The price of Nutanix AHV Virtualization could improve."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 46 reviews while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 18 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 7.6, while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "It's a low-cost solution that enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nutanix AHV Virtualization writes "Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, Proxmox VE, VMware Workstation, Oracle VM VirtualBox and Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI), whereas Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, KVM, Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) and Oracle VM. See our Hyper-V vs. Nutanix AHV Virtualization report.
See our list of best Server Virtualization Software vendors.
We monitor all Server Virtualization Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
