We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Get our free report covering Microsoft, VMware, Proxmox, and other competitors of VMware vSphere. Updated: January 2022.
564,322 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of VMware vSphere alternatives and competitors

Kevin Heron
Technical Operations Manager at Ocient, Inc.
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
Rivaling the stiffest and competition in its category this solution suffers only from being young
Pros and Cons
  • "That the product is free and still has all the features you expect is a huge benefit."
  • "The setup is very easy."
  • "The product is still a little young so it is maturing, but new features are coming out all the time."

What is our primary use case?

We use this solution as our virtualization platform. It is a hypervisor that we use for our virtual needs to run servers.  

What is most valuable?

One of the things that I found most valuable is how easy Proxmox is to deploy. It can run on anything. Right now we are running it on some file servers that we have without any special configuration.  

I also like how it has got the same high-availability features as you get in a product like VMware. I get those benefits and I do not have to pay the $17,000 a year for the VMware license to enjoy them.  

Because Proxmox VE is open-source, the only expense we have is the support costs. You get an easy to use GUI that you can use to look to see who your virtual clients are and what hosts they are living on. You can also essentially vMotion — which is a VMware term but the feature in Proxmox does the same thing — to transfer a system.  

It is host-aware, so if the host Proxmox is living on crashes and there is another host in the cluster, it will automatically failover. That is just a great capability. It also can do the same thing if performance on the given host exceeds a certain threshold. You have the option to configure that as you want it with the product. It will automatically move to a different host to improve performance with the system and, in turn, improve the performance of the application running on it.  

What needs improvement?

Really every user interface could use a little bit of improvement. It is already very user-friendly at the present time but there are some ways that it can get even better.  

Another area that might have room for improvement is either building in or having third-party tools that could report on CPU and memory usage across your virtual platform. They have those tools for VMware and that helps you to point out resource bottlenecks so that you can right-size a VM. If a VM is soaking up too many resources, it is defeating the purpose of virtualization. Proximo is really missing those kinds of tools right now. You have to do that on your own. So that could definitely be an opportunity for improvement. It is not necessarily just room for Proxmox to grow, it is more of a possibility industry-wide for these products.  

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Poxmox VE (Virtual Environment) for the last 12 months.  

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability of Proxmox is good. It runs well, and they are constantly looking to improve the product. By "they" I mean the core group at Proxmox themselves. But the key part of the updates is everything is well-tested and the goal is obviously to maintain stability while upgrading the functionality.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Proxmox is scalable. Let's say you wanted to add an additional host, or you wanted to add additional hosts just from memory or virtual CPUs, just for additional resources. You could just add a host. You do not need to buy a license to do it. That is better than just scalability, it is scalability without cost.  

With VMware, you have to buy a license or you need to use it free for 30 days, but eventually, you are going to have to procure another license. With this product, I can just take whatever server I have, install Proxmox on it, and that is it. I introduce it to the cluster during the install, and everything is up and running.  

So it is very, very easy to scale at will. I have not seen any limitations of the product itself that would prevent me from adding additional systems or or other resource into a cluster. By resources, I mean CPU, memory, drive space, or other performance enhancement.  

We do not even have to have anybody on staff who is here to maintain the system. It is just another part of the existing architecture that gets monitored by the systems that we already have in place. We have monitoring set up so that we can tell how the system is performing overall. We can generate reports within Proxmox to tell us how it is performing in a given cluster and how many hosts it has.  

We plan on keeping it as our virtual platform and we are pretty confident that it can scale with our needs. If our virtual needs increase, then that is exactly what we would do: scale it up. We can just run everything on it — anything not critical that is fine running on a VM. Right now, we are a very small company. There is plenty of room to grow and I do not expect Proxmox will be exhibiting pushback any time soon.  

How are customer service and technical support?

Customer support is the only cost for the product and it is about $3,000 maximum. It depends on the support plan you choose. There are two different plans. If you want a 24 by seven plan or next business day, that is the difference. The plans are a little different but it is all very clearly laid out on their website.  

Their support is pretty good. Even if you did not want to pay support, the thing that is great about the product is that it is open-source. There are a lot of knowledgeable users nowadays and the pool is growing all the time. A lot of times you can just Google whatever issue you are having and likely come up with the solution to the problem.  

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

We did use a different solution prior to Proxmox VE, and that would be VMware. At this point, we have been able to migrate from VMware completely and we just use Proxmox.  

Before I got here, the company was strictly using VMware for this type of solution. I am not really sure if they looked at other solutions. When I got here I did not even know about Proxmox. I just assumed we were a VMware shop. But after I started, someone had discovered Proxmox and I started reading up on it. It was interesting enough that I started using it. As I did, I thought it felt very familiar. I kept testing and as far as I was concerned I could do everything in Proxmox VE that I was doing in VMware.  

The initial deployment of Proxmox did not really have all of the same features as VMware, but that was kind of the expected in a newer open-source product. They added the other features very quickly. How much the product is advancing is especially apparent with this latest release where it has got the same failover concerns as VMware does. They are called "high-availability" features.  

So now that you can get all the HA (high-availability) features that VMware has, there are not too many major differences between VMware and Proxmox. The only difference is you get it for no cost. It is easy to use, easy to manage, easy to scale, and there are probably going to be a whole lot more and better things coming down the pipe from them. It really has been a great effort on the part of the developers.  

How was the initial setup?

The question of whether it is easy to set up or not really is more like five questions. They are pretty easy questions.  

We have the source on a thumb drive. You launch the system install from the thumb drive and the first question it wants answered are "What is the time zone," "What is the host hostname," and "What is the IP address?" There are three of the questions. With those three questions, you just started the installation on the target server.  

If you want to get running, there are two more important questions. You answer these questions the installer does its job and installs everything you need on your end and you are done. The two questions are "What is your username?" and "What is your password?" You answer those questions and you are done with the installation. You can see it has a high-level of difficulty.  

From the time the setup starts, the total time it takes to deploy everything is about 20 minutes. You do not need an integrator, reseller, or consultant to help you out with the installation. You can set up everything yourself.  

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

My advice on the pricing is that there is no pricing: it is free. The only thing you pay for is support and it is like $2,500 a year. The support is completely optional. But even the support is absolutely affordable for just about any company in the market. In any case, it is well below the cost of a VMware license.  

What other advice do I have?

My advice to people considering the product is that they have nothing to lose. Run it in a development lab, make sure they are comfortable with it, and make sure that the application that their company runs can support that hypervisor. It should. Then deploy Proxmox and start saving money.  

I have been encouraging former colleagues of mine that are VMware users to start using Proxmox. I suggest they throw it in their development lab and spin it up and start building systems just so they can see the absolute benefits of this product and really enjoy the fact that they can have it as a solution at no cost.  

Proxmox is constantly coming out with updates. If the company you are working for has the appetite to run updates frequently in a production environment you can enjoy frequent releases. They are always looking to add additional features to the product. That is kind of nice. They have a very agile approach to the development of the application itself.  

What people are concerned about is that it is open source. But hopefully, they will start to realize all you have got to do is use the product, they do not have to program anything. It has got the same features that VMware has, but it is not as restrictive as VMware because it is open-source and you can actually build on it if you want to.  

In VMware, the hypervisor, which is called VirtualCenter, needs to live on its own system. It can not coexist with everything else. Proxmox does not have that issue. Proxmox can have everything living on one system. You will want more than one piece of hardware in a given cluster so you can set it up separately if you want to, but the possibility is there to put it all on one box. I think it is a little bit better than VMware in that sense because you have that flexibility.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is best, I would rate Proxmox VE as a seven-out-of-ten. Ironically, I would rate VMware lower than Proxmox because of the price.  

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.
IT Director at HOMELAND TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC
Real User
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.
Flag as inappropriate
Director of Engineering at a manufacturing company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
A free and versatile open-source solution that supports multiple platforms and is easy to set up
Pros and Cons
  • "The good thing is that it is multi-platform. Once you create a virtual machine in one particular environment, you can switch over to see if you can run it in other environments. For example, if you are on Windows and you create this virtual machine, you can actually go ahead and change the operating system. You can switch it over to Linux or Mac OS and see if you can run the VirtualBox on those particular machines. It even runs on some of the commercial operating systems that are not mainstream, such as Solaris and BSD. These kinds of operating systems are also supported by VirtualBox. The other thing that is good about VirtualBox is that it is open source. So, if you need to do any modifications for your own purposes, you can just download the source, modify it, and deploy it in your environment. It is pretty good and very versatile. You can create and manipulate virtual machines from the command line, which is also very important. It's something that some other products on the desktop side do not have. VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop don't have a good command-line interface to create and manipulate virtual machines, whereas VirtualBox has it out of the box, which is pretty good."
  • "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."

What is our primary use case?

My personal one is to create virtual machines to do different things within the house. I have a few servers in the house, and the servers themselves run lots of the services that we need, but sometimes you need to have a service that is run on a kind of a "dedicated machine." So, instead of having a physical machine to run those services, we just create a virtual one. It just spins off like a virtual machine, and everything works okay. Some of the machines that are for more home automation and other such things don't need very powerful processes or much memory. They are very suitable to be run on virtual machines. They can have their own IP addresses and can be reached from the outside of the home.

What is most valuable?

The good thing is that it is multi-platform. Once you create a virtual machine in one particular environment, you can switch over to see if you can run it in other environments. For example, if you are on Windows and you create this virtual machine, you can actually go ahead and change the operating system. You can switch it over to Linux or Mac OS and see if you can run the VirtualBox on those particular machines. It even runs on some of the commercial operating systems that are not mainstream, such as Solaris and BSD. These kinds of operating systems are also supported by VirtualBox.

The other thing that is good about VirtualBox is that it is open source. So, if you need to do any modifications for your own purposes, you can just download the source, modify it, and deploy it in your environment.

It is pretty good and very versatile. You can create and manipulate virtual machines from the command line, which is also very important. It's something that some other products on the desktop side do not have. VMware Fusion and Parallels Desktop don't have a good command-line interface to create and manipulate virtual machines, whereas VirtualBox has it out of the box, which is pretty good.

What needs improvement?

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.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for a long time. It was a standalone product before it became an Oracle product.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

For my users, it is very stable. We do home automation on it, and it works really well. It has some advanced features like auto restart of the virtual machine. If your virtual machine crashes, or even when you have a power outage and the server comes back up on its own, it spins off the virtual machines automatically. You don't have to do anything about it. It is pretty good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I don't have any impressions on the scalability because I only use it at home, and one of the machines that we have is not so powerful. The other one is a little powerful. So, we can run lots of virtual machines, but we don't run that many.

How are customer service and technical support?

I needed support just once. It was mostly because I decided to do something that I should not have done. One of the machines that we have is a little older, so I decided to use a method to install a newer version of the operating system, which theoretically is not supported on the machine. There are lots of articles on the web where you can patch this and that to make it work. So, I did it, and unfortunately, it broke VirtualBox. I did not reach directly to customer support, but I posted a question in the community, and we agreed that what I did wasn't a good idea.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, and anyone can do it as long as you know how to install a particular operating system. You just download the executables from the website and run them. They install VirtualBox, and then you just open it up and point it to the disk where you have your operating system, and it does it really fast.

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

It is pretty good for the price, which is free.

What other advice do I have?

I would rate VirtualBox a nine out of ten. It is really good, and I like it very much. It is definitely not a ten because even though it has lots of support from Oracle itself, it is an open-source product. If you look at the user interface, it is very decent, but it is not the most polished user interface. 

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.
IT Infrastructure Lead at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Stable, with good resource management, but needs to allow more access to documentation
Pros and Cons
  • "The most valuable aspect of the solution is the resource management from the OVM Manager."
  • "You need to have a model for documentation available for the users. Right now, if you have to search for some troubleshooting, you need to have Oracle login. Many personnel might not have that login. The reach, the availability of information to the end-user, is not there."

What is our primary use case?

The solution is primarily used for server virtualization. We have opportunities that we want to learn from. For our customers, we recommend this product. We have Oracle databases or Oracle, Linux, or Red Hat Linux to run it on a virtual machine, and Oracle VM fits perfectly into that.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the resource management from the OVM Manager. It makes document management very smooth. The performance is excellent.

What needs improvement?

I'm still evaluating the product and getting to know it.

The only thing I'm finding is that the backup software, which is supporting Oracle's virtualization platform, needs improvement. We're struggling to get a solution that will support my Oracle virtualization environment for backup purposes. I just found one on the internet. I was trying to reach out to that team now, to see how best we can use it. However, if Oracle had a solution to this, that would be ideal.

You need to have a model for documentation available for the users. Right now, if you have to search for some troubleshooting, you need to have Oracle login. Many personnel might not have that login. The reach, the availability of information to the end-user, is not there.

There are some articles that are publicly available, but there are some important documents that are not available to the public. You need to subscribe, or you need to have a licensed copy, some subscription with the product.

Any product, at the end of the day, needs support. When the support or the knowledge base or the information is not available or the documentation is not available for any of this, for the person who is implementing this, it's very difficult for them to get used to this product. They will simply move to another product.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for two or three months now.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The solution certainly is stable. We don't seem to suffer from bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The solution is very easy to scale.

How are customer service and technical support?

I've never reached out to technical support, so I can't speak to their level of service. I tend to handle troubleshooting myself.

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

I have experience with Hyper-V, VMware, and Citrix ZenServers.

The technology is all similar. It's about virtualizing the servers. However, I feel that VMware is much better and much more stable than Oracle VM.

How was the initial setup?

At first, the initial setup was not so straightforward and was rather complex. This is largely due to the fact that we were not aware of the environment and how to use it properly. I believe it will get easier to implement over time.

You need to deploy the server and have the virtualization on top of that. Then you configure and install everything. How long it takes depends on the environment. If it's a small deployment, it may only take about two days. A larger deployment could take as long as six to eight weeks. 

I've done a file server deployment, and that only took three days.

You only need one person to deploy the solution.

What about the implementation team?

We are consultants. We assist our customers with implementations.

What other advice do I have?

We're partners with Oracle. We're consultants.

My advice to other potential users is this: nothing is better than planning. It's much in a better way to start a project. That way, you understand how much it is that you need to have or how many servers you require. It seldom matters when you deploy in the virtual environment. 

You need to be very hands-on in Linux environments. I come from a Windows background. I am not a Linux user, for the most part. That said, fo this project, I learned Linux.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

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: Partner
Michael Ewhe
Enterprise Server and Storage Administrator at a financial services firm with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
Top 5
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.
Flag as inappropriate
Get our free report covering Microsoft, VMware, Proxmox, and other competitors of VMware vSphere. Updated: January 2022.
564,322 professionals have used our research since 2012.