vCenter Orchestrator Reviews

Primary use would be consolidation into a smaller footprint and its performance is pretty good.

It allows us to maintain an offline catalog of a bunch of product configurations that can be powered on remotely, so they don't use any resources while they are off.

The hardware abstraction layer, being able to make the VMs portable when moving to a different platform or over a WAN.

I would like to see, from within the Web Console, being able to define the project and custom templates per user; almost like how CloudSpec has approached the solution.

Stability is an eight out of 10.

Scalability is an eight out of 10.

There was no previous solution. It was all bare metal hardware.

When selecting a vendor the most important criteria are time in the industry and cost.

The initial setup was very simple.

I looked at Zen, VMware, Microsoft Hyper-V, and the free Linux solution. My decision was made by the fact that our product support team only specifically supports virtualization on VMware.

I rate this solution a nine out of 10 because of its simplicity, scalability, and availability. The one ding would be the need for better manageability of VM sprawl, that would be nice.

In terms of advice, I would tell people that this is VMware's only business, or primary business. That's longevity in your investment, as opposed to going with a Microsoft or a Linux that may or may not continue the solution.

We primarily use this solution for automation.

We have an on-premises deployment, and we do not plan on using the cloud.

vCenter Orchestrator is easy to use.

The interface could be improved to bring greater user-friendliness and ease of use.

This is a stable platform.

This solution is scalable.

We have ten users, including system administrators and end-users.

Their technical support engineers were quite capable of dealing with any issues that we have had. Luckily, since the platform is stable enough, we haven’t had to open many cases. There was only one that we had in the initial phase.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

I definitely recommend this solution. As a whole, it is quite good. It is difficult to pick a single aspect that I would recommend. You have to use the whole thing.

From what I have been told, the newer versions have already addressed some of the issues that we have identified. We are planning on upgrading to the most recent version, and I am waiting to see what the differences are.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution to try to make use of it on a couple of workflows, as well as deployment, and packages. 

The solution helps us to manage our resources more efficiently.

In regards to the workflows, the fact that we can actually have a full dashboard library of all the existing workflows on this is great. We can see all the workflows and what all the actions do and can work with scripts.

We haven't gotten to that level of usage yet as to be able to see the downsides. The solution has been able to handle our basic requirements at this point. Maybe in a year, when the team has used the solution extensively, we would be able to actually see the drawbacks, especially those of us who are trying to compare it with other solutions as well.

As we work towards more stability on the solution, sometimes we'll try something and it breaks and it's easier to restart the service. That's the only drawback. We've experienced this with other applications as well. 

It would be great if the solution could further integrate with other services. it would be really good to have all of the solutions in one particular dashboard or one particular installed package. Right now, you can do that from other products, but we have to orchestrate it or have it as a subset. It would be great to actually have all the features bond together, especially for SMBs. It would be really cost-effective in the end.

The solution is pretty scalable. With the new cloud platform, it's easy and at a fairly low cost. We do plan to increase usage in the future.

We didn't previously use a different solution.

For our organization, the initial setup was straightforward. We don't have a super complex multi-tenant environment, which may make it more complex for others.

Deployment took about a week but it wasn't a fast deployment. We handled it on and off as we handled other projects, so it happened over the course of two weeks to a month.

We had VMware assist with the implementation.

We're a partner, so we have a PLU licensing model; we have a partnership agreement.

We're using the on-premise deployment model.

It's a great solution and it's great to work with as well. Anything coming from VMware is pretty much top-notch, but, of course, you still have to look at the licensing requirements before you sign on to the solution. It should be a case of functionality versus budget in terms of if it will work for your organization.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use vCenter Orchestrator for all our automation. We use vCenter Orchestrator workflows to automate our infrastructure entirely.

What I like best about vCenter Orchestrator is that it makes life easier because it's for automation. My organization has a portal where people can request to automate all tasks or processes with vCenter Orchestrator, such as adding storage, creating VMs, removing VMs, and extending VMs.

I liked the previous client better than the current web client of vCenter Orchestrator, though my colleagues like the client now. Getting used to the current web client was difficult because it was different from the old client, though this is my personal opinion.

The technical support for vCenter Orchestrator needs improvement.

I've worked with vCenter Orchestrator for many years, probably ten years in my team. I'm still working on it.

Stability-wise, I don't have issues with vCenter Orchestrator, so it's a nine out of ten.

vCenter Orchestrator is scalable enough for my current environment, but it's not just a single product because my company has multiple vCenter Orchestrator running.

I'm not happy with VMware support, so I'd rate it as five out of ten. My team even had mission-critical support, yet the support quality could be better, and the support team could have been more responsive. Right now, my team is in the middle of an issue that's been going on for quite a while, but my team still can't find the real cause, and the vCenter Orchestrator technical support team can't find the cause either.

Neutral

The initial setup for vCenter Orchestrator was easy.

We deployed vCenter Orchestrator. We are integrators operating a private cloud for multiple customers.

My organization didn't have to pay extra for vCenter Orchestrator. It was already included, so it's basically free. Even VMware regular support is included.

I'm working with VMware products, such as vSphere, vCenter Orchestrator, and vRealize Operations Manager.

My colleagues develop workflows. I'm not into vCenter Orchestrator development.

My company is a cloud provider.

I don't know how many people use vCenter Orchestrator within the organization. Still, it has a few thousand employees, with ten people in the development team I'm part of, so I'd say approximately a thousand employees could be using the product.

I would recommend vCenter Orchestrator, but the learning curve is rather high. It's not an easy tool to use for development, so you have to get to know it first. One area for improvement in vCenter Orchestrator is that it lacks good courses, tutorials, or training centers. What you'll find is very basic, and if you want more advanced training, you won't find one, so within my team, you have to learn it yourself, get experience, and find out how vCenter Orchestrator works.

My rating for the tool is eight out of ten because it needs more training resources and advanced courses, and VMware should provide training.

The version we use is not updated. 

The solution allows us to manage multiple VMware in a single, vCenter, console. It is very useful.

The solution is easy to use.

I would like to see better performance. 

We have been using vCenter Orchestrator for around six years.

The solution is stable.

I do not have knowledge of the technical support. 

The solution was easy to install. 

The implementation process takes between 30 to 43 minutes. 

When it comes to the deployment, they have an administrator. We will provide them with support should an issue arise. 

We provide the VMware solution to our clients, for which they pay a perpetual license. 

We have around 10 customers making use of the solution.

My recommendation is that one solely go with vCenter.

I rate vCenter Orchestrator as a ten out of ten. 

I am using this solution as a test for a future project.

vCenter Orchestrator is not in production yet.

The most valuable feature is affinity rules.

Using this solution requires a lot of experience.

I have been using this solution for one month.

We use this solution for creating workflows, and we have a public-cloud deployment.

We are a cloud service provider. We have the ability to do custom workflows for our customers, but none of our customers are using workflows right now.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the workflow creation.

The user interface is ok.

The custom workflows are very difficult and confusing.

The IDE for developing is not user-friendly and does not have IntelliSense for checking your code. I find this to be very challenging.

It would be nice if the IDE accommodated all of the languages because right now, it only has JavaScript. More options for scripting are needed, such as C# and Acorn.

I would like to see the creation of video tutorials to help learn how to use particular functions of the product.

I don't think that this product is very stable because, at the moment, I am not able to run workflows. It crashes. Workflows that I have run before, I'm not able to run them again. It just crashes for no reason.

This solution may be scalable but right now, I haven't had any cause to explore scalability. In my environment, we do not have customers for this solution. It is used in-house.

We're working on internal workflow, but at the moment, it is not being used extensively. 

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was not straightforward. I had to do a lot of research, and a lot of reading. There was no material available online.

I performed the implementation myself, but as I said, it was not straightforward. I had to search and experienced a lot of challenges, but at the end of the day, I was able to figure it out.

We did not evaluate other options before choosing this solution.

This is a product that I'm still exploring.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

At this moment I can't find another solution that is better than vCenter Orchestrator.

Haveri might be better in Malware.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the free movement of data between machines. It is the most cost-effective method for moving data between machines.

The licensing is expensive and should be improved.

The solution is stable.

We use it to prime the machines, and it's very good.

Apart from the times, we are doing the virtual relocations and it is scalable.

The initial setup is easy.

It can take half a day to set up two to four servers.

This solution is expensive and the licensing is more attractive for Haveri.

Even though it is expensive I would still rate this solution a ten out of ten.