"II prefer customers to use Hyper-V because Hyper-V is mostly integrated with Microsoft solutions."
"The solution is highly stable."
"The most valuable feature is being able to do checkpoints then roll back to the checkpoint because that's what we need to test the software. We're testing the installation and then we roll it back and retest it."
"I like that Hyper-V is like a virtual environment. I like to use VMware because of the resource requirements. In Sri Lanka, most of the customers use the Hyper-V GUI. When installing the interface with the Windows version, we also install the Hyper-V feature on the server. This is because they require more features and memory. There are so many features that they have embedded in Hyper-V that are useful."
"One of the most valuable features of Hyper-V is ease to use."
"The installation was straightforward."
"I have found the GUI user-friendly and having the solution be a Windows application makes it familiar to users."
"It has provided a good cost-saving from the management perspective."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"This solution is very stable. Much more so than similar products."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"Customers are moving to open source and Red Hat is the leader in this particular space. I think customers feel more confident running Red Hat Virtualization than VMware."
"It is easy to deal with when comes to application migration and its compatibility with the multiple component applications."
"It is very stable."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"Hyper-V systems need a lot of admin effort because security updates and monthly updates require rebooting after the update."
"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."
"The product can be a bit difficult to use."
"Failure capabilities are insufficient for disaster recovery."
"Hyper-V isn't a lightweight solution like VMware. Management could be more straightforward. Even as far as disk management tools are concerned, it would be better if that could be made simpler. The same applies to performance."
"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."
"There is a problem with high-availability if the load is too high."
"Security, computing balance, and taking snapshots could be improved. Features like DRS and memory ballooning could be added."
"In comparison to VMware, this solution isn't as stable. We're testing it right now, and we're not trusting the stability of the product."
"The support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
"When we do a direct comparison, then obviously VMware does better in terms of having Fault Tolerance and doing active disaster recovery and these kind of things. This is something that can be improved within Red Hat."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
Hyper-V is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while RHEV is ranked 8th in Server Virtualization Software with 11 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 7.6, while RHEV is rated 8.2. 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 RHEV writes "The versatility and compatability of this virtualization solution are marred by the lack of availability of local support". Hyper-V is most compared with KVM, Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, Oracle VM VirtualBox and IBM PowerVM, whereas RHEV is most compared with KVM, VMware vSphere, Proxmox VE, Oracle VM and Nutanix AHV. See our Hyper-V vs. RHEV 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.
