Buyer's Guide
Server Virtualization Software
January 2023
Get our free report covering Microsoft, Proxmox, VMware, and other competitors of VMware vSphere. Updated: January 2023.
672,411 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of VMware vSphere alternatives and competitors

Atif Najam - PeerSpot reviewer
Chief Information Officer and Program Lead at Gatron Industries Ltd
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive
Pros and Cons
  • "The support is excellent."
  • "If you want to install a specific operating system, you must first check to see if it is listed in the compatibility list; only then will you be able to install it, and that is one issue for now."

What is our primary use case?

To use geo clusters, you must have AHV running at the bottom of Prism Central. That was one application. Clusters must connect to multiple geographic locations. 

Second, we needed a lightweight system that could integrate with AHV Prism natively.

Nutanix It was an out-of-the-box integration with AHV being Nutanix and Prism being Nutanix. We didn't have to do anything special to integrate it with Prism. 

Third, an application feature was available with AHV that was not available with VMware or other solutions. That feature enabled us to create VM-level recovery and production sites across our spectrum. 

Fourth, the way AHV and CVM actually work, because if you buy VMware, it must be integrated with vSAN; in this case, CVM was integrated with AHV. 

What needs improvement?

Many backup solutions that we use today are available for purchase, be it IBM, VMware, Veritas, or anything else. They usually have very good vSphere and Hyper-V support. Because there isn't much AHV deployment in place, we typically have issues with the integrations that AHV has with backup solutions. We would like to see AHV's backup solution integration improved so that we can take VM-level backups directly from Nutanix.

The issue is that it provides a higher VM level for VMware and other areas. When it comes to AHV, however, you must purchase a separate set of third-party software, which can then supplement that backup via your IBM Spectrum Protect Plus.

One issue we frequently encounter when using AHV is that if you want to install specific software, you must first gain compatibility.

If you want to install an operating system, or OS, on top of your AHV, only a few operating systems are supported. That is one area where I would like to see some progress. VMware typically supports almost all of our systems, as does Hyper-V, but when it comes to AHV, we must apply specific patches in order to run it on top of AHV. Operating system support must be improved out of the box.

If you want to install software, you must first ensure that it is compatible with Nutanix AHV; not all software is compatible.

It is not possible to integrate it with everything. There is limited compatibility with the software that can be installed on top of Nutanix AHV, for example.

If you want to install a specific operating system, you must first check to see if it is listed in the compatibility list; only then will you be able to install it, and that is one issue for now.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Nutanix AHV Virtualization for approximately three to four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

We had a few issues initially. There was some upgrading required because the system was initially behaving abnormally due to a firmware issue that was causing issues with our memory. However, a fix was provided, and we have had no problems since. We had no problems because Nutanix usually provides proactive support.

Overall Nutanix AHV Virtualization is very stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Nutanix AHV Virtualization is a very scalable solution.

I have approximately 6,000 people who use the services that I provide on top of this AHV system.

Because we are running Oracle-based ERP on that, all of the users are internal.

How are customer service and support?

In terms of support, there are two systems that I usually consider. First and foremost, it is most likely proactive in identifying any future problems that the team may encounter. 

They have a system that allows them to log in every day to the support team, and they actually go through that support and let us know if they see any problems. For example, if we have a problem, and we engage the Nutanix resources, most of the resources that Nutanix aligns with us are very good technically, and they usually resolve the problem within an hour or two at most.

The support is excellent.

I would rate the technical support a five out of five because it is critical that vendors can see what the problem is with the product after they have made a sale.

It is important that the team providing user support assists us in resolving issues as quickly as possible.

How would you rate customer service and support?

Positive

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

Spectrum Protect Plus, is an IBM product, that we are using for backup and recovery.

We used multiple platforms to evaluate the products. What we were aiming for was a private cloud server environment in which we could provide application services, infrastructure services, and other similar services for a fee. This was the solution's actual vision. 

To evaluate the product, we needed to consider a variety of factors. One was the product's technical soundness. 

VMware has already been used in several cases, but the issue was that in the case of VMware, we had to procure four to five different solutions. For example, to deliver the same feature set as Nutanix Prism Central, we had to purchase vRealize Orchestrator, vRealize Operations Manager, Orchestrator, the NSX platform, and so on.

We chose Nutanix AHV Virtualization primarily because we did not require other products, for example, when comparing it to VMware, we simply listed three additional products that we required to deploy the VMware hyperconverged option. We chose Nutanix AHV because it was obviously the easier option.

How was the initial setup?

Nutanix Management Cluster was the solution we chose, with Nutanix Prism running on top. 

It was pretty straightforward; all you had to do was turn on the hardware, and the software was already installed. 

Nutanix can send you those configured, pre-installed, and up-and-running systems; all you have to do is bring it in and do the system. There was nothing to be done; the only initial configuration was to connect the cluster to the system, and that was it.

I would rate the initial setup a five out of five.

Everything was predeployed and preconfigured. We only needed to plug in the power and network to get it up and running. 

The entire setup took about 15 to 20 minutes. It was just bouncing the servers and powering the bot.

Both options are available. You can also have a hybrid model, as well as an on-premises model and a cloud model. It really depends on how you want your infrastructure to be designed. We have a model that is on-premises.

We have the on-premises version of AHV, and as I mentioned earlier, everything grew so large that we had to move on-premises.

It is essentially self-sustaining. We don't have to intervene very often.

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

We can purchase a subscription and have a specific piece of hardware and software available on the cloud. We have the on-premises version.

There are two types of AHV licenses available on the market. The first is the perpetual model, in which the license is purchased once and an annual support fee is paid, and the second is the Cluster model.

When we removed AHV, we were left with the perpetual model.

We paid a one-time fee for the license, and there is an annual maintenance or support fee for patches and everything else.

We do not pay licensing costs on an annual basis, and we pay the support and maintenance fees once a year to ensure that we have the necessary support and maintenance. 

The annual maintenance cost is approximately 15 to 18% of the actual cost that you pay. If you buy the solution for $100,000, the support and maintenance contract will cost you $15,000 per year.

It is dependent on the use case. If you only want to buy a hypervisor, it is a very expensive product; however, if you look at the entire solution as a whole, totality, it is less expensive. Because when we compared the prices of VMware and Nutanix as a whole bundle, there was a difference of around 25%, with Nutanix being 25% less expensive because you are purchasing the entire package.

Based on my experience, if you want to buy virtualization and other things, it is a little pricey, but it showed us what the value is.

Price can be a bit slow if you want to break into the market, but it is a premium product, it is pricey.

I would rate the pricing a three out of five. It is expensive, but it also provides the value for money and performance that you require as a hyperconverged and virtualization software.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We were looking for a turnkey solution for a hyperconverged system. 

There were several options available, including Nutanix with VMware vSphere as the virtualization layer, Hyper-V as the virtualization layer, and AHV as the virtualization layer.

Certain feature sets are only available with AHV hypervisors when it comes to Nutanix clusters. 

What other advice do I have?

Because they have revisions for backup, and their availability, I would rate Nutanix AHV Virtualization an eight out of ten.

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.
Flag as inappropriate
IT Director at HOMELAND TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC
Real User
Top 10
It's a low-cost solution that enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server
Pros and Cons
  • "We've probably seen a 50 percent speed increase on our SQL server. Hyper-V has also significantly reduced our downtimes with faster boot-up and reboot. If we have to reboot a server, there is maybe two or three minutes of downtime. When we were on a bare-metal server, it could be five to ten minutes due to the total boot time."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

We use Hyper-V for our on-premise servers, and we have a couple of Hyper-V desktops that remote salespeople use to log in remotely. They have an on-premises station they can remote into and utilize everything at our other office. We replicate everything there, so if anything happens to our facility here, we can get spun up at our other location.

There are 40 people in our organization. We have sales engineers, technicians, and our standard office staff. Three servers are running off of Hyper-V, including our SQL server for our main CRM and QuickBooks databases, our central files storage server, and another files server that holds our backup domain controller. Then we have another domain controller that handles some other internal things. That is pretty much our organization in a nutshell.

We plan to expand usage of Hyper-V. For example, we have a terminal server that isn't on Hyper-V at the moment. It is session based, and we're working on transitioning over. Also, we got a brand new server two weeks ago, so we're transitioning everybody off of the terminal server to local Windows 10 and Hyper-V VMs. 

Everyone will have their own desktop environment versus having a session-based terminal. That way, if there's an emergency patch update or something like that for one person on the terminal server, we don't have to take the whole terminal server down. We can take down that person's desktop. We'll deploy as many as 12 additional Hyper-V desktops running in that. 

That will be our future deployment based on what we've seen in the Hyper-V desktop environment and its performance. It runs great. All users who have already transitioned to that environment are enjoying it compared to the old terminal server that we had.

How has it helped my organization?

We were running three servers, but Hyper-V enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server running NVMe drives in it. Using Hyper-V's virtualization, we can operate all our servers on one physical server. We're seeing better performance off of that thanks mainly to the NVMe drives. 

We've probably seen a 50 percent speed increase on our SQL server. Hyper-V has also significantly reduced our downtimes with faster boot-up and reboot. If we have to reboot a server, there is maybe two or three minutes of downtime. When we were on a bare-metal server, it could be five to ten minutes due to the total boot time.

What is most valuable?

Hyper-V is more cost-effective for the size of our business One of the Hyper-V's biggest advantages over VMware is the cost. We are a small business, so Hyper-V allowed us to virtualize everything we need without breaking the bank.

What needs improvement?

The most significant issues have with Hyper-V are the snapshots, local backup, and retention. VMware handles their backups are a lot better. I'd also like to see the ability to virtually hook an input-output device directly to the Hyper-V and the VMs, whether it be a card reader or disk drive. This is something you can do in VMware. 

We still use customer or software solutions that come on a disk. I often have to rip the data and transfer it over. If I could just throw it in my disk drive and link my disc drive to that VM, that would be beneficial, or if I had a card reader that I could hook straight in. It's not a make-or-break thing, but that would make everything a little bit easier on some installs.

For how long have I used the solution?

We've been using Hyper-V in production for about three years now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

Hyper-V has been highly stable. I'm impressed with the performance. Granted, this was my first Hyper-V install, so I was a bit worried about it, but with the hardware platform that we have it on, everything's been excellent stability-wise, and I haven't had any issues with that server. It's been up and working for the past six months. I only had to reboot once to do an update. Everything has been working great.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Hyper-V is less scalable than VMware. It's excellent for smaller environments like ours, but VMware is still the go-to solution if you want to scale up.

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.

How are customer service and support?

I've never had to deal with their technical support. Everything has gone smoothly with Hyper-V. When I had a few minor issues, I was able to find solutions on the Microsoft forum.

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

We had VMware ESXi, but it came down to what we needed as a business. Hyper-V was the best bet for the cost. It all boiled down to cost and ease of deployment. 

How was the initial setup?

The Hyper-V setup was straightforward. I transitioned all three of our servers by myself on New Year's Eve. I came in at 8 a.m. and had all three servers transitioned over to Hyper-V within about six hours. The initial setup for VMware took a little longer. 

First, we needed to get the Hyper-V server in place. Once we had that in place, we transitioned from the bare-metal servers to the Hyper-V transition for our initial servers. We used a solution — I believe it was called StarNet or something like that — to do our initial conversion from bare-metal to VM. 

Over the next six months, we spun up our new servers and did conversions because we were running server 2008. Once we had everything on the VM's, we split up the new VM servers and transitioned to the server 2019 platform.

We have two IT staff members for deployment and maintenance. I do 90 percent of the maintenance. The other IT person does little things as needed, but Hyper-V requires little maintenance.

What was our ROI?

By implementing Hyper-V and cutting down on servers, we have seen a cost reduction. If we stuck with the bare-metal servers, we would see an initial cost for the server hardware of about $4,000 or $5,000. And in the long term, we'll save money on electricity and overall server maintenance of the servers. About five years out, we'll either break even or save over the cost of bare-metal servers.

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

There's no annual cost for the Hyper-V server version 2019. If you add up the other solutions we have on there, it totals up to around $3,000 a year.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate Hyper-V around 8.5 compared to VMware. The ease of use is there, but VMware has more options and scalability. However, VMware has a lot more upfront and yearly costs. Hyper-V is a great solution and an excellent way to virtualize your servers and everything. It's a good fit for a small business.

If you're converting from Hyper-V or vice versa, make sure you run a couple of tests of your conversion strategy. I did run into one little snag the first time. The server wouldn't boot properly, but that came down to a permissions issue. Make sure you thoroughly test any server or VM's you're converting over. Test to see that everything boots back up. Also, make sure all your virtual switches are set up correctly because you sometimes run into some networking issues within the VM if you don't configure those 100 percent correctly.

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
Business Engineer and Consultant at All-Tech
Real User
Top 5
Reduces OpEx and is easy to maintain, along with low memory usage and a minimal interface
Pros and Cons
  • "The most helpful aspect of KVM is the fact that the interface is so minimal. It includes just what you need to set up the VMs and manage them, and it's very simple to do so."
  • "One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy."

What is our primary use case?

We are using KVM on-premises with Ubuntu 20.04 for the primary purpose of reducing operating expenses (OpEx) and to make maintenance and security easier for us. Of note, with this kind of virtualization technology, you can very easily create backups and restore data in case of disaster.

The services that we have running on our virtualized KVM environment are currently being used by everyone at the company, numbering in the range of thousands of end-users.

We also make use of Proxmox VE and, less often, VMware.

What is most valuable?

The most helpful aspect of KVM is the fact that the interface is so minimal. It includes just what you need to set up the VMs and manage them, and it's very simple to do so. You don't need to go with the typical black-screen command-line interface; instead, you just have a small graphical interface with which you can create VMs, edit them, upgrade calculations, and perform other administration tasks. And, because the interface is so lightweight, it has very low memory usage.

KVM, as a native virtualization solution, is a complete and fully adequate system for small businesses that need to reduce costs, and also to make maintenance easier. 

What needs improvement?

One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy. For this kind of task, you have to get behind the command-line to set it, and this process isn't easy for a newcomer. However, if you have planned your virtualization project well and you know exactly how much RAM and storage space you will need for each different VM, you can simply set it and forget it, because everything you set is permanent.

Another improvement I would like to see is better functionality when it comes to making snapshots automatically while the VM is still running. For example, when a VM is running and you want to back it up, occasionally the VM backup that you obtain is not usable. Thus, I would propose that in the next edition of KVM there should be better "hot" backup features (as opposed to "cold" backups which are performed when the VM is powered down). 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using KVM for about six years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

KVM is extremely stable, to the point where I would give it 5/5 stars for stability.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

In terms of expanding the dimensions of your virtual disks, KVM is not easy to scale. Let's say you have a 10 GB disk, and you want to scale it up to 15 GB, the process requires that you enter a basic console and use the command-line interface to set the new size. It's not always an easy process for beginners. On the other hand, it is easy enough to scale other resources such as the CPU and RAM.

However, in general, when it comes to supporting a large number of users, it is scalable enough for us as we have thousands of users in the whole company using the services that are being virtualized with KVM.

Additionally, it's not hard to scale when talking about labor and maintenance. For example, I'm the only one administrating the infrastructure, by setting up and managing the VMs (e.g. adding VMs, editing configurations, etc.), for all these thousands of users in all different positions of the company.

How are customer service and support?

I provide support for the system myself and I have not yet needed additional support, mainly because I only use it for basic operations.

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

KVM is a perfect alternative to commercial solutions in the market such as VMware, especially when it comes to stability. In my experience, KVM is more stable than VMware.

How was the initial setup?

I performed the initial setup and I did not need to contact support. Instead, I provided the support I needed by myself, in order to become comfortable with the basic operation of KVM. Compared to Proxmox, the setup is very similar, although admittedly Proxmox offers a more user-friendly interface to manage VMs.

In all, the setup took about two hours. If the internet connection is good, I install the operating system, then set up the hypervisor and perform the updates before installing the VMs. Two hours is about enough for this entire procedure. 

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

There is no cost involved in the use of KVM, as it is open source.

What other advice do I have?

On the whole, I would certainly recommend KVM to new users. Going further, I would give the following advice: although it's true that deep administration can be a bit difficult for newcomers who are not used to Linux, if you just follow the tutorial on KVM deployment and plan your deployment properly, you will be able to set up a stable virtualization system with ease. That's one of the perks of KVM — it's natively very stable once it has been set up correctly.

I would rate KVM an eight out of ten.

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.
Flag as inappropriate
Oracle Techno Sales consultant at a tech services company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Flexible solution with extensive features like OVM Manager, enabling you to avoid hard coding
Pros and Cons
  • "It's a very flexible solution because you have all the commands that you can do yourself."
  • "Something that could be improved are the snapshots that go in the ZFS Storage. If you want to enjoy Oracle VM, you will definitely want it to go together with ZFS Storage to maximize on the snapshot facility."

What is our primary use case?

I handle both sales and technical. We also sell cloud technology, so I do a lot of extensive work on cloud implementation.

We are Oracle Gold partners. We do a lot of deployments around Oracle VM. We are core in Oracle infrastructure and Oracle banking. When I say Oracle infrastructure, I'm looking at the x86 servers, also the SPARC servers. When you look at infrastructure, these not only carry the servers themselves, we look at the virtualization technology, which is definitely Oracle VM, both on SPARC and on x86.

Recently, we have been doing a kind of mix where the customer wants Dell and Oracle x86 VM.

I have done this deployment for an insurance company, and they have a lot of insurance solutions which run on the Oracle database. They could not go for the expensive Oracle server, so they decided to go for the Dell server but now are hard partitioning Oracle VM to cut down on the cost of licenses.

We have installed life insurance solutions on Oracle VM hard partitioned, and the general insurance solution is hard partitioned to focus on Oracle VM. They have a dock management system that uses Oracle database, hard partitioned also to focus on Oracle VM. They have a business intelligence solution which also uses Oracle database, also hard partitioned to Oracle VM.

We have actually created the production and VR with loads of VLANs swinging through both production and VR side, all on Oracle VM.

Storage is Dell Unisys storage, and then the computer is all Dell servers.

What is most valuable?

It's a very flexible solution because you have all the commands that you can do yourself.

The OVM Manager is very extensive and very nice to use for those who don't have a 360 view of the hard coding of things. They can still use Oracle VM to run the show, especially in the SPARC version. I've done some deployment with Oracle SPARC VM, but using Connect to connect it to Oracle OVM Manager. We use the OVM Manager to provision the SPARC server rather than going through the hard work of writing the codes of SPARC VM yourself.

All these things make Oracle VM a kind of panacea solution for me.

What needs improvement?

Something that could be improved are the snapshots that go in the ZFS Storage. If you want to enjoy Oracle VM, you will definitely want it to go together with ZFS Storage to maximize on the snapshot facility.

In other virtualization like VMware, you can do the snapshot right at the level of VMware itself. You'll get customers complaining that, "We can't take a snapshot just like we do on our normal VMware solution."

I always advise my customers to go with ZFS Storage. If you maybe had a snapshot on the Oracle VM itself, it would make sense.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been born and bred with Oracle since 2001. It is a career for me. In the past 10 years, I moved between flex to core banking, CRM, ERP and Oracle E-Business Suite to Oracle hardware T8 implementation.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It's extremely stable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is scalable because we are using production and VR 35 kilometers apart. Scalability is no issue.

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

The licensing for Oracle VM solution is very nice because you license the box.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate this solution 10 out of 10.

My advice is to throw away your VMware because the licenses will kill you. Throw away your Microsoft Hyper-V because it doesn't work. Just go with Oracle VM because it works.

Oracle Virtualization works and is the best in the world, so I don't know what guys are doing with other solutions.

Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
Enterprise Server and Storage Administrator at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Flexible, rugged, user-friendly, and easy to understand
Pros and Cons
  • "It is quite flexible and rugged. It is also easy to understand and user-friendly. It is not as complicated as some of the other solutions. It has its technicalities, but it is easy to understand. You can easily pick up in a short period of time and understand how to manage the infrastructure."
  • "I am not very sure about how flexible Citrix Hypervisor is with different types of infrastructures. I only know it is flexible with Nutanix, but I am not sure if it is also flexible with others. They can make its integration with other platforms or OEMs easy. They should also make it easy for users to manage their infrastructure. Citrix should make compatibility information related to a hypervisor easily available in a datasheet. Citrix isn't really recognized in this part of the world, and they need to expand their solution and make it more available. There are a lot of customers and companies that are looking for a solution like Citrix, and it should be available in this part of the world. They need to educate people more. Technically, it is good and flexible and has good ability, but it is not as much known as VMware or Microsoft. Their support should also be improved. Currently, if you don't have an updated version, they will not give you the attention."

What is most valuable?

It is quite flexible and rugged. It is also easy to understand and user-friendly. It is not as complicated as some of the other solutions. It has its technicalities, but it is easy to understand. You can easily pick up in a short period of time and understand how to manage the infrastructure.

What needs improvement?

I am not very sure about how flexible Citrix Hypervisor is with different types of infrastructures. I only know it is flexible with Nutanix, but I am not sure if it is also flexible with others. They can make its integration with other platforms or OEMs easy. They should also make it easy for users to manage their infrastructure. Citrix should make compatibility information related to a hypervisor easily available in a datasheet.

Citrix isn't really recognized in this part of the world, and they need to expand their solution and make it more available. There are a lot of customers and companies that are looking for a solution like Citrix, and it should be available in this part of the world. They need to educate people more. Technically, it is good and flexible and has good ability, but it is not as much known as VMware or Microsoft.

Their support should also be improved. Currently, if you don't have an updated version, they will not give you the attention.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for about eight years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is pretty stable. We have recently upgraded to a newer version. I used 7.6 for a long time, which was very stable in spite of being end-of-support. In terms of stability, they are doing a good job.

How are customer service and technical support?

We currently have a problem with technical support at our location. We don't have so many Citrix support companies or partners. We have just a few of them, and it is pretty difficult to get support and talk to Citrix directly. For this, two things are involved. You need to have the latest updates of infrastructure, and you should have got the support license. Otherwise, you can't get support from them. If you don't have the updated support or version, they will not give you the attention, which is a problem and a shortcoming.

I had to call them because we had a disconnect with our storage, and due to that, we lost a lot of data. I couldn't get support from Citrix because they informed me that I was using an older version of the solution. This is one of the shortcomings, so we had to work on the issue internally to resolve it. We had a backup, and we were able to restore everything,

How was the initial setup?

It is easy and straightforward. It all depends on the hosting platform. You need to be sure that the host is actually compatible with the version of the hypervisor that you're using. It matters a lot. If you're not using the right or compatible infrastructure, you may run into some problems. Citrix should make this information easily available for people in a datasheet. Most of the time, you have to go online for this information. It should be easily accessible for the users so that they can easily find information about compatible platforms. 

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

I am fine with their license support. What we have right now is permanent, so I don't have a problem with their license.

What other advice do I have?

I would recommend this solution for user endpoints or desktops. I would rate Citrix Hypervisor an eight out of ten.

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.
Buyer's Guide
Server Virtualization Software
January 2023
Get our free report covering Microsoft, Proxmox, VMware, and other competitors of VMware vSphere. Updated: January 2023.
672,411 professionals have used our research since 2012.