We performed a comparison between Nutanix AHV Virtualization and Oracle VM VirtualBox based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Virtualization Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."For our markets here in Morocco, we are mainly working with server virtualization, and the most valuable feature is the software-defined storage and hyper-converged infrastructure."
"It is a stable solution. I haven't faced stability issues in the solution."
"The solution scales very well."
"You don't need any other instruments for control, AHV. You only need to look at the prism to control all infrastructure."
"The most valuable feature of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is the user-friendly environment. The integration, implementation, and training for the solution are good."
"The initial setup of Nutanix AHV Virtualization is straightforward."
"The solution is user-friendly and provides good virtual machine backups. The user interface gets updated when there is a new release."
"This product stands out for its user-friendly interface, intuitive design, and responsive UI. It offers AVH features comparable to Nutanix but at a more cost-effective price point."
"The snapshot feature is very powerful; it protects us from disaster."
"I think VirtualBox has good stability because I use it in an environment with several resolutions."
"It is a stable product."
"The solution has high performance and is easy to use."
"The versatility, simplicity, and stability of the product are it's most valuable features."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that there is no cost because it is open source."
"Oracle VM Virtualbox is easy to use and does not require much training."
"The pause feature is valuable. I can pause, which is something that not all hypervisors allow. The snapshot feature is also valuable."
"The solution should work to improve its stability."
"There are some issues with the interface and integration."
"The solution can be pricey."
"When we need to share, publish, or encrypt something, we still need to perform it using the command line."
"If you have the need for special hardware like FibreChannel-Cards or such and there is no networked-way around it (such as you could work with USB Dongles via an HW-Dongle-Server of network), you have to use a separate hypervisor."
"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 could improve the call logging system to HPE, it is a bit tedious."
"Some companies do not support AHV."
"Basically, the GUI and command-line interface need improvement."
"Oracle’s support team should improve its response time."
"It has some issues when you have some weird device drivers. For instance, when you have a weird sound driver working on your machine, and the VirtualBox needs to output the sound of the virtual machine into the sound driver of the physical machine, the bare metal, it doesn't work too well. If you tweak lots of drivers and play around with the different kinds of drivers and machines, you will probably break something. I have not played with it too much and maybe it already supports it, but it would probably be good to have the ability to use a container from the virtual machine environment instead of spinning off a complete virtual machine. There are other tools for that. On Linux, you have a DXE, LXC framework, and you have Docker as well. Docker is good because it is multi-platform, and you can run Docker on pretty much anything, even different processors, but it would be good if we had a VirtualBox running on it while spinning off containers instead of full virtual machines. The other thing that will become important, and I'm pretty sure that they are thinking about it as well is that there's this new hardware platform that Apple is releasing, which is an ARM-based new chip. So, VirtualBox will probably have to work on ARM-based CPUs as well."
"The product lacks scalability since it is for desktops and not for servers."
"The solution is a bit less stable than I would like."
"They could improve the graphics functionality of the product."
"It would be good if we could use Hyper-V Windows subsystems with Linux and VirtualBox on the same instance. Currently, to be able to use VirtualBox, we have to restart the machine into an instance of Windows where Hyper-V is disabled, which is understandably very inconvenient."
"The solution should have more enterprise features, like migration, high availability storage, disaster recovery, and the ability to deploy to enterprise-scale usage. They should not just offer desktop usage."
Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 44 reviews while Oracle VM VirtualBox is ranked 5th in Server Virtualization Software with 61 reviews. Nutanix AHV Virtualization is rated 8.6, while Oracle VM VirtualBox is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Nutanix AHV Virtualization writes "Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle VM VirtualBox writes "The solution is versatile, simple to use, and stable". Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, Hyper-V, KVM and RHEV, whereas Oracle VM VirtualBox is most compared with Proxmox VE, KVM, Hyper-V, Oracle VM and IBM PowerVM. See our Nutanix AHV Virtualization vs. Oracle VM VirtualBox 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.
