Manager at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 5
It's an affordable solution for small customers that don't need high availability, but it's a hassle to update
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We usually use Microsoft Hyper-V for very small customers that don't have the budget for another library or hypervisor. We use Hyper-V when the customer has only one or two virtual machines. It's typically bundled with the Windows Server operating system, so we can provide virtual machines for free. 

In Malaysia, we started the cloud journey in 2020. Most people were looking for services, and many customers wanted to migrate to the cloud immediately. They just look forward and make some comparisons. If you say, "I want to migrate to a cloud," typically, our customers will ask for AWS as a primary choice, followed by Microsoft Azure.

What needs improvement?

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.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

VMware is more stable than Hyper-V.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Hyper-V's scalability or stability is okay. The problem is updating the host. Sometimes we have to schedule downtime for the entire machine to boot up, and the Windows update process takes a long time on the loading stream. It causes a lot of downtime for the customers. Hyper-V has more requirements to scale up compared to VMware. 

Buyer's Guide
Hyper-V
January 2023
Learn what your peers think about Hyper-V. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: January 2023.
672,411 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Only about 15 percent of our customers use Hyper-V. Most use VMware. VMware is much more robust than Hyper-V. If customers need high availability or more stability, we tell them to go with VMware. If cost is an issue, they can opt for the VMware Essentials Kit, which is the cheapest. 

How was the initial setup?

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. We can do anything on top of it without any other computer. 

VMware can't do this. You must have a console server, and then you can use the web to enter to the VMware to do the configuration. Hyper-V can still be configured inside the host operating system, which is more convenient.

We don't have a dedicated team just for Hyper-V. We just have a Microsoft support team. This is a Microsoft product.

What was our ROI?

The time to value for Hyper-V is shorter than VMware because the customer will typically purchase a Windows Server license with the hardware, so it will be faster.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I think Hyper-V is much cheaper for a small or medium-sized business. If the customer is running VMware and using Windows Server, we still have to purchase a Windows Server license plus the VMware license. Hyper-V will be cheaper if it's just a small deployment for one or two virtual machines.

What other advice do I have?

I rate Hyper-V six out of 10. Hyper-V is okay if customers are comfortable with it and don't require high availability. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Vmware Administrator at Intertech
Real User
Top 5
Budget-friendly, but needs security and other feature improvements
Pros and Cons
  • "This is the best solution for customers with budget constraints."
  • "Security, computing balance, and taking snapshots could be improved. Features like DRS and memory ballooning could be added."

What is our primary use case?

The primary use case is for customers who want to virtualize their infrastructure, but are on a budget and don't need advanced features. 

What is most valuable?

This is the best solution for customers with budget constraints. 

What needs improvement?

Security could be improved and they need to have some sort of a Distributed Resource Scheduler like VMware. Hyper-V doesn't have that kind of a solution. Computing balance could be improved. If you have three or four nodes in a cluster, it should look at the load and based on the algorithm they use, it will place the VMs automatically onto a utilized node in the cluster. Memory ballooning, where unused memory can be cleaned and given to demanded VMs, is a feature I would like to see. 

Taking snapshots could also be improved. It's not straightforward and I had a couple of issues with the Windows server 2000 tool when I took a snapshot of the active directory. When I went to restore that snapshot, I had a problem with active directory sync issues. VMware doesn't have this problem. Even if you're taking a snapshot of the active directory, you can easily revert back and you will not have any trouble with active directory replications. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Hyper-V since 2012. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is stable, especially if you do Hyper-V clustering. Some customers don't invest much into IT infrastructure, so I design Hyper-V-cluster-based solutions. The only potential problems are attacks on Windows servers, vulnerability issues, or receiving stolen packages could require you to restart it. But it does its job. 

How are customer service and support?

Some of my customers have software assurance from Microsoft, but those who don't have to pay if they need technical assistance. Microsoft Azure has support, but if a customer has deployed the infrastructure on-premises and they don't have software assurance, they will have a problem getting support from Microsoft. 

How was the initial setup?

The installation took about fifteen to twenty minutes for a Microsoft Windows server. 

For deployment, you need expertise in terms of storage, network, and computing. If a customer requires a high performance, we need to look at the computing, processor, and what kind of storage and network switches we're using. You need an expertise team in order to get the best solution. 

What about the implementation team?

I installed this product myself. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I recommend Hyper-V to customers with budget constraints. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

VMware has a lot of features. For example, with vMotion, if an administrator wants to do maintenance, they can do live migrations. Hyper-V does the job and is okay, but it's not the same as VMware. 

What other advice do I have?

If you are on a budget and can't invest too much into IT infrastructure, I recommend Hyper-V. If budget isn't a problem and you're looking for the best solution, I would go for VMware. I have about 85 customers that are using Hyper-V clusters at the moment. Hyper-V is okay for utilizing the file server, clusters, or active directory, but you won't get advanced features. 

I would rate Hyper-V a six out of ten because it is missing a lot of features. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Integrator
PeerSpot user
Buyer's Guide
Hyper-V
January 2023
Learn what your peers think about Hyper-V. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: January 2023.
672,411 professionals have used our research since 2012.
IT Operations Manager at a computer software company with 1-10 employees
Real User
An advanced solution with good management and the capability to scale
Pros and Cons
  • "I find that most of the competition is more or less the same. However, Hyper-V is, when you compare it to the older platforms like VMware, a little bit more advanced at this stage."
  • "If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult."

What is our primary use case?

We mostly use Microsoft Hyper-V in our production environment.

What is most valuable?

I find that most of the competition is more or less the same. However, Hyper-V is, when you compare it to the older platforms like VMware, a little bit more advanced at this stage. 

I like the System Center part of it, the System Center VMM, where you can manage all the stuff together in the orchestrator and those kinds of things. That was not really available when we looked at Proxmox and other options.

Microsoft's got the better deployment tools like MBT and conflict manager, which is not in the other platform.

For me, the initial setup was very easy.

The solution has been very stable.

The scalability on offer is good.

What needs improvement?

It's hard to compare it to other solutions. Everything has almost the same offering.

It's possible that more deployment tools might make it a bit better.

If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult. 

The next generation should at least include most of the tools of the next operating system.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution from the start. I likely started using it around 2006. It's been well over a decade. I've used it for many, many years at this point. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The product is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup was very simple in my case. I've got a certification, so for me, it's almost like second nature. For someone with less experience, it's possible it may be a bit difficult.

What about the implementation team?

I am able to handle the implementation myself. I do not need an integrator or consultant. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We did look at Proxmox and Citrix Hypervisor, among other solutions. 

What other advice do I have?

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I'm using the 2012 and 2016 versions of the product.

I'm more familiar with Hyper-V and with Microsoft products. I've got certification in that as well. There are some management solutions out from Microsoft, which are not just for Hyper-V, but for a lot of things. With these, it's almost like an all-in-one product, which you don't really get when you look at your Linux-based virtualizers. For example, with Proxmox, there is not really management. You have these notes that you couple up and then you have a backup server, however, you don't really have something that you can orchestrate those things with. Citrix, I can't speak to as I didn't really work with Citrix that much.

If you run any kind of network solution, I would rather recommend Hyper-V over any other hypervisor at this moment - unless you are looking at it from a cost of ownership perspective.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There's no such thing as a perfect product, however, I'm pretty happy with this.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
PeerSpot user
Test Environment Manager at a wireless company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Helpful import wizard, good reporting tools, and the replication feature works well
Pros and Cons
  • "The replication, creation, and import wizard, as well as the integration with reporting tools, are the most useful features."
  • "In my opinion, it would have been better to truncate the site-to-site replication."

What is our primary use case?

I work in an environment where we are required to use them, as well as for DevOps and a few other things like Helios and similar things. As a result, I use it for DevOps testing, infrastructure, and implementation within the product areas of my clients.

What is most valuable?

The replication, creation, and import wizard, as well as the integration with reporting tools, are the most useful features.

What needs improvement?

The WSUS could stand to improve a little bit. It is also foggy at times. Again, I use a wide variety of products and services, but going through each one would take much longer, but WSUS is an awesome Microsoft product that could use some improvement in terms of reporting tools and such. Even the additions and servers work is more difficult. Even the manual add is difficult, and reporting occasionally breaks into the endpoints, but that could be one to five servers when I'm checking a hundred to 200 servers.  I suppose it's insignificant, but when it causes problems with those minor details, it can be difficult. But, aside from that, it works well.

It does what it needs to do and is adequate for the time being. It completes tasks such as replication cycles and other similar tasks. That's probably the only way it can be. In my opinion, it would have been better to truncate the site-to-site replication. If it could have been a simpler process, or if there was another way they could have done it, it would be beneficial. For example, if I'm doing site-to-site replication, I would normally have to do that in terms of bandwidth; Cisco has some, and they have some different tools that would enable the packages to be smaller and faster, but maybe just Microsoft takes a while to do the site-to-site replication.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Hyper-V for approximately 15 years.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

This solution is used by 10 administrators, and the product itself has 500,000, or 600,000 users.

How are customer service and support?

We have pretty good in-house expertise, we haven't needed to reach out for actual technical support.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I test products ranging from VOIP to Microsoft to virtualization, VMware, and Hyper-V. I am always testing products and then deciding whether to put them into production for use or scale operations.

In the last year, I would say it has been a voice over IP products as well as a couple of SBC products. This is also true for VM testing and Microsoft products, such as Hyper-V, and a couple of software for voice over IP integration.

Microsoft, as well as perhaps eight or nine others.

I also work with DevOps.

We haven't used the VMware solution to its full potential, and the reason for that is that the software that is currently used on that platform lacks certain features that would allow us to use VMware to its full potential, but it resides on the VMware platform.

What other advice do I have?

In order to obtain the products, we must go through a third-party vendor. We can't go directly to Microsoft.

I would rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
PeerSpot user
Solutions Specialist at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Powerful, easy to use, but more integration needed
Pros and Cons
  • "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."
  • "In an upcoming release, they can improve by having better cloud integration. We are all moving towards the clouds and the integration is only through the Azure Stack, there should be tools built in to move the VMs natively to the cloud and infrastructure. Additionally, they could provide some form of multi-cloud integration."

What is our primary use case?

I have been making solutions around the Hyper-V bundles for my clients. For example, hyper-converged infrastructure, such as in vSAN and Vsphere for company data centers.

What is most valuable?

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.

There are a lot more features and is easier to use compared to previous releases. They were using PowerCLI for the management but now it is all GUI-based which has made it a lot easier to use.

What needs improvement?

Hyper-V is not a type one hypervisor, such as vSphere. When it comes to Hyper-V, it is a role in Windows Server. Hyper-V could have been much leaner and much more powerful, but it becomes only the Hyper-V part of it. There should be some distribution or limit to Hyper-V, such as in vSphere.

The missing factor or parameter, in Hyper-V and all of the functionality, is a role it plays inside the Windows operating system. You have to enable those roles. That is something not appreciated in a data center because Windows is a general-purpose operating system, not for the sole purpose of doing these types of operations. They could skim down the version of the operating system and have it customized for virtualization, not as a general-purpose operating system.

In an upcoming release, they can improve by having better cloud integration. We are all moving towards the clouds and the integration is only through the Azure Stack, there should be tools built in to move the VMs natively to the cloud and infrastructure. Additionally, they could provide some form of multi-cloud integration.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been involved with Hyper-V for approximately two years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution is stable in my experience.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support is good because there are a lot of administrators out there in the market who are well-versed in Microsoft technologies.

How was the initial setup?

The installation is straightforward. The installation time can vary depending on if you have preloaded configurations. If you were to do it from scratch then it would take approximately 20 minutes.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Hyper-V is cost-effective and is a one-time purchase. Microsoft has multiple licensing options available, such as a subscription model and an outside purchase model that customers can choose as per their requirements.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I have evaluated VMware vSphere.

What other advice do I have?

Hyper-V is very popular in the market for data centers and most of my clients are using Microsoft in some form or another but it might not be their core ERP.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
PeerSpot user
CEO at ICES International
Real User
Hyper-V is mostly integrated with Microsoft solutions and has high availability
Pros and Cons
  • "II prefer customers to use Hyper-V because Hyper-V is mostly integrated with Microsoft solutions."

    What is our primary use case?

    I'm mostly implementing Hyper-V solutions. Most of my clients are implementing Hyper-V on-premises, and on cloud my clients are using Microsoft Azure.

    I am a Microsoft architect. I'm certified in Microsoft. My company is located in Cameroon and many countries in Africa and out of Africa. In my company we are working on Microsoft solutions at 80% on Windows Server, SQL, Exchange, Microsoft for Business, ISO. We are training with these solutions and implementing them.

    What is most valuable?

    Most clients are using Microsoft solutions. I prefer customers to use Hyper-V because Hyper-V is mostly integrated with Microsoft solutions. For example, when you have Hyper-V, it doesn't make sense to pay more for another license to buy VMware. For me, it's a waste.

    With the Windows data center, I can have an infinite number of virtual machines. In the past, VMware was very important maybe 8 or 10 years ago, but with Hyper-V it has navigation ability and it's integrated with Windows Viptela 16 for free. People want navigation and high availability. All these features are included with Hyper-V for free when you have a license of Windows Server.

    What needs improvement?

    For Hyper-V, the copy and paste function could be improved. You cannot continue copying from the host machine to the virtual machine. It's very difficult. You can paste text if you want to extract the command from the virtual machine. You can save the command on the host machine and pass through the main activity to paste the command on the virtual machine. It's good but sometimes when we want to work very quickly, it would help if Microsoft integrated the possibility to paste a file from the host machine to the virtual machine.

    The integration tools are sometimes not very smooth. Most clients can't develop it very well because most administrators are working on host machines or from a laptop administering virtual machines. So the administrator working on a laptop  must have the possibility maybe from the host to paste on the virtual machine.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's very stable. I have never had a problem with Hyper-V's stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The solution is scalable because you can migrate the virtual machine for Hyper-V to the cloud easily. Each time they release a new OS, they are adding new features so far it's scalable.

    How are customer service and support?

    I've never had an issue with Hyper-V where I needed to ask for support. I can resolve most issues myself.

    How was the initial setup?

    Deployment is very easy. 

    It depends, but it can take two or three hours to implement it. If the infrastructure is difficult, it can take one or two days. It depends on the number of virtual machines currently in use.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Owner at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    Easy to set up with good baseline pricing however can get expensive
    Pros and Cons
    • "My understanding is it's easy to set up."
    • "The only negative thing I heard was that the baseline price is very, very attractive relative to VMware, however, the vCenter counterpart, the thing that brings it all together, is quite pricey."

    What is most valuable?

    What I understand from our people is that it's certainly better now than it was a few years ago. They keep improving. 

    The pricing is pretty good. 

    My understanding is it's easy to set up.

    What needs improvement?

    The only negative thing I heard was that the baseline price is very, very attractive relative to VMware, however, the vCenter counterpart, the thing that brings it all together, is quite pricey.

    We could probably live without it since we are a relatively small operation, however, vCenter is very convenient. vMotion and so forth are nice to be able to do. However, in order to be able to do the counterpart to that in the HyperVision world, suddenly the cost differential diminishes dramatically. We're not considering a change anytime soon, yet things have changed even from the last two years ago when we last looked at this.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    I don't have many insights on stability. I have read a few things, however, it's not really my space. 

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Across all of our clients, we probably have a few hundred in use, however, the number of instances of our application that are operating on those virtual servers, I don't know. 

    How was the initial setup?

    The only data point I have there in relation to the initial setup is a conversation with a guy who spends 90% of his time supporting VMware organizations. He's had some Hyper-V experience. He says, "It's straightforward and I see it growing." That's somebody who's in that who space telling me that just the last week.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The pricing is a function of how many cores you have or how many processors you have. Since we're a Microsoft partner and use tools to create and maintain the software that we sell subscriptions to, we get very attractive pricing. If whatever their counterpart to the vCenter licensing weren't an issue, it would probably be 20% of what we pay for VMware.

    When you add the vCenter, counterpart back in, however, it comes to be probably 80%-85% of what you actually need. The last 10% or 15% is where it gets pricey. That's a lot to cover for us to do unless there's some other serious functional advantage - and our guys haven't seen that yet.

    What other advice do I have?

    I'd rate Hyper-V a five out of ten. I'm not a user of it, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to rate it, however, the part of it that I was most interested in was the pricing notion. Microsoft does all sorts of interesting pricing things. I'm sure they have a good reason for doing it, however, to say, "We'll give you 80% of what you need for almost nothing and if you want the last 20%, you got to give us your left kidney" seems a little unusual.

    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Managing Director with 51-200 employees
    Real User
    Top 5Leaderboard
    Impressive support, scalable, but difficult to manage
    Pros and Cons
    • "The solution has good scalability."
    • "Hyper-V could improve by making it easier to manage."

    What is our primary use case?

    Hyper-V is used to virtualize machines. You install the latest version of Microsoft Windows Server on your hardware, and you install Hyper-V in the Microsoft Windows Server. You can now install multiple virtual servers within Hyper-V. They all can have different functionality.

    The servers can be used for many things, such as file servers, ERPs, and web servers. All of this was not available before the advent of virtualization. With virtualization it's easy with one hardware machine, you can have several servers.

    What needs improvement?

    Hyper-V could improve by making it easier to manage.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using Hyper-V for approximately 20 years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Hyper-V is a stable solution, but not as stable as VMware.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The solution has good scalability.

    The server is accessible to all the users that need to have access to the network resources.

    How are customer service and support?

    The in-house Microsoft specialists will attempt to resolve any issues we are facing and if they are not able to do it, we escalate to the head office. If the head office is not able to do assist with a resolution, then they escalate to Microsoft for the final support. The Microsoft support has been very good and this is why we are still with Microsoft.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I have previously used VMware. 

    VMware may be a better solution than Hyper-V because Hyper-V is a bit more sophisticated and complex. VMware is not as complex. However, the best option depends on the company and what the business wants. That's what we determine, what is best for us. We are using Hyper-V because we do not need to get a separate license in our Microsoft system.

    How was the initial setup?

    The implementation of Hyper-V is more difficult than VMware.

    The deployment time depends on the number of servers you have in total but to deploy one of the servers, would take approximately 15 minutes. You have to, first of all, start with the installation of the server, and do all the conversion. It could take you close to four hours, depending on the speed of the machine.

    What about the implementation team?

    We did the implementation of the solution ourselves. We have certified Microsoft specialists as part of our team. If you did not have them we would use an outsourced implementation.

    In Nigeria, we have three to four people managing the solution, but in other places, the number could be different. For example, in Ghana, we have five managing the solution. 

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    There is a license to use this solution and it is an annual purchase.

    What other advice do I have?

    I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free Hyper-V Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
    Updated: January 2023
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free Hyper-V Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.