We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and Proxmox VE based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Hyper-V and Proxmox VE seem to have a more or less rating among users regarding ease of deployment, pricing, and service and support. In terms of features, users of Hyper-V weren’t satisfied with the recovery capabilities and the instability if the stack became bloated. On the other hand, users of Proxmox VE didn’t like the need to update manually but felt that the solution was young. Therefore, the bugs they experienced will hopefully have a solution with a future update.
"I like that it's easy to use."
"The most valuable feature of Hyper-V is the replica service."
"Hyper-V integrates well with other Microsoft solutions."
"The initial setup is simple. There's not much to do. We input one command or just one or two clicks on the UI. Initial setup in the Windows environment for any software is not that difficult."
"The solution allows us to take advantage of our physical environment."
"The solution is easy to configure."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The solution is very powerful, easy to use, user-friendly, and integrates well with Windows. If you are looking for a hundred percent Microsoft environment it would be a good idea to go with Hyper-V. They work wonderfully together."
"It is easy to deploy."
"There are many features included with Proxmox."
"The solution is open source and free to use."
"The whole solution is good. It has good tools that help me in managing the servers. It is also stable."
"In addition to the virtualization, the firewall and the routing functions that it provides are valuable."
"The virtualization is good."
"The most valuable features of Proxmox VE are the ease of containerization. Overall the solution is generic, feature-rich, and has compatibility."
"Proxmox is free, very stable, and doesn't require more resources for memory RAM. It's fine for a small data center."
"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."
"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."
"In my opinion, it would have been better to truncate the site-to-site replication."
"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."
"It would be better if it demanded less memory. Once you have allocated those memory spaces for the installed server, fewer resources are left to allocate for the Hyper-V virtual environment. That's the drawback with that. For example, once you install Windows 10, and let's say Windows 2019, Windows 2019 will take at least 10 GB of memory. If a customer has only 16 GB of RAM on the system, they think of installing Hyper-V. Because when you have windows 2019 or something else, they give two free Hyper-V virtual licenses. But we can't because there's not enough memory. We can, however, install this as a VMS. But this UI isn't that user-friendly for most customers. They like to have a user interface with VMI, and it's not easy when you install VMI. It would also be better if they can improve their core Hyper-V version to be a bit more familiar and user-friendly with its interface. I think it would be much easier. We had a few issues with the VM Hyper-V virtual network. Once you have such issues, it's very difficult to find out where they came from. They had such issues, and we had to resolve the system again. But other than that, if it's useful and keeps working nicely, it will work very nicely even if something happens. But it's very hectic and challenging to find out where it's happening. In the next release, it would be better to control this data store part in a manageable way. This is because once we install and create a Hyper-V machine, it goes everywhere. It would be better if it had a single location and a single folder with a heartbeat and virtual machine information. You can just go forward, and the data store and everything are going into one place like the C drive. But something always goes fast, or everything gets lost if the customer doesn't manually change the direction of where the virtual hard drive routes, the more serious the problem. It would be better if they could merge all that together. This includes the virtual machine and the virtual hard drive in the same folder when creating the virtual machine. I think that it would be much easier to manage and in case something happens. Technical support also could be better."
"If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult."
"If you have a bigger implementation, you need more tools to coexist with many, many features that are not present in the base Hyper-V."
"Hyper-V doesn't have a lot of features and is limited compared to other virtualization software."
"Proxmox VE can improve by importing OVF or OVA files directly from OVA. I need to convert all the images to raw images before importing them to Proxmox VE. If there is a solution that I can import directly from VMDK, it would be better."
"One issue with Proxmox is that some processes are not automatic. For some processes, you have to do it manually by command line."
"The only issue I have with Proxmox VE is updating it. You have to manually update it or you have to have a way to update it automatically."
"We find it difficult to find the root cause of the issues."
"Its user interface can be improved. In the version that I am using, not all functions can be performed by using the UI. There can be some improvement on that. I'm assuming that it has already been improved in the latest version."
"We are using servers individually, and we are looking for a reliable application that allows us to hop between servers with high availability."
"I can't speak to any improvements. It is not lacking features."
"The only disadvantage of Proxmox VE is that it is a young solution so it does have some bugs."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 44 reviews while Proxmox VE is ranked 2nd in Server Virtualization Software with 16 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 7.4, while Proxmox VE 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 Proxmox VE writes "Feature rich, good compatibility, and impressive fuctionality". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, KVM, Oracle VM VirtualBox and Citrix Hypervisor, whereas Proxmox VE is most compared with KVM, Oracle VM VirtualBox, VMware vSphere, Nutanix AHV Virtualization and Citrix Hypervisor. See our Hyper-V vs. Proxmox VE 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.
