Technical Manager at OAK integrated System Pvt Ltd
Real User
Top 5
May 12, 2025
The pricing for Hyper-V is a little bit higher, but it is below VMware. Currently, VMware has a high price in the market, and I think Microsoft has a competitive pricing structure, allowing us to migrate from VMware to Hyper-V.
Until 2019, Hyper-V was a cost-effective solution because it was available as a free product. This influenced our decision to select it for virtualization consolidation.
It's a medium-priced solution when using Microsoft's Cloud program. The combination of hardware, software, and customer launching services balances cost and value. Initially, it was very expensive, and customers paid a high price, but now the costs are decreasing. Microsoft is motivated to shift workloads to Azure, which has led to more affordable licensing over time. It becomes progressively cheaper each year, making it a more attractive option for customers. With this program, a full server with a dual-core processor costs around seventy dollars monthly. There are additional costs to consider. If you want to use the full management features, that adds another thirty dollars per month. Additionally, SQL Server and Windows Server come with their costs. When you combine all these components, you might spend around seven hundred dollars per month.
Licensing cost depends on the edition you choose. There are two main options: Standard and Datacenter. With a Datacenter license, you can only create two virtual machines that are covered by the license itself. You can create more VMs, but they won't be licensed and could result in charges during an audit. Feature-wise, both Standard and Datacenter editions offer the same functionalities. The key difference lies in licensing. Standard includes licenses for only two VMs, while Datacenter allows you to run any number of VMs with a single Datacenter license. Datacenter also offers functionalities like Storage Replica and live migration that aren't available in Standard. The user doesn't have any control over the licensing process itself. You can create VMs regardless of licensing, but in Standard edition, they'll be considered unlicensed and subject to charges during an audit. Datacenter offers all the features of the Standard edition, plus the ability to run any number of licensed VMs as part of the Datacenter licensing cost. That's why Datacenter is more expensive.
The product comes with Windows Server. It is updated every time there's a new version of Windows Server. There is no separate license for the solution. It is part of Windows Server. There's no additional cost other than having a backup solution to back up the virtual machines. It might just be the cost of any backup software license.
System Administrator at a tech vendor with 11-50 employees
Real User
Feb 28, 2023
Cost-wise, what one gets is directly proportional to the price paid. If the need for capacity doubles, then the price also doubles. We get all the licenses for the solution through a third party.
The cost of the product actually comes under the Windows server purchase. A Windows Server standard license comes with Hyper-V. A minimum of eight core license units need to be purchased. The costs depend completely on your CPU and core central server.
We rent our licenses for this solution, which means that we also have access to premium-level support. The rental cost is payable annually and includes a number of products that work with this solution. It also allows us to run unlimited virtual machines without needing a license for each one.
Owner at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Jul 1, 2022
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.
Manager at a computer software company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Jan 12, 2022
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.
The licensing costs depend on the environment you have. If you have an environment of less than 10 or 30 VMs, It's nice to have a Hyper-V, but if you have more than 100 or 200, I would recommend using VCenter, VMware virtualization, especially for an on-premise solution.
Technology Solutions Manager at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Aug 12, 2021
There is a license required to use Hyper-V and there are bundle packages you can purchase making it cheaper than other solutions, such as VMware. Additionally, if there is a lot of guest OS that requires Windows, then Microsoft becomes cheaper. The cost of the usage is dependant on the customer's requirements and if the virtual network is flexible or not. Since VMware is more flexible it can become superior but not cheaper.
Solutions Specialist at a computer software company with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Jul 2, 2021
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.
IT & Security Team Leader at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Jun 8, 2021
I think Microsoft is a little better in pricing. But as I said, I'm not a pricing person, and I can't speak with great confidence on that. But in general, Microsoft is a little lower than BMI.
The costs in regards to upgrading the solution are quite high and it deters customers from changing versions. The old solution in 2012 was charging at a cost per server and the pricing was good at the time. In 2016, Microsoft upgraded the licensing, or changed the licensing scheme to per CPU within the server. Basically, if we wanted to upgrade to 2016, we would have had to pay double again for the same software. Therefore, we decided to go with another solution. The solution offers perpetual licensing.
Owner at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Apr 28, 2021
Because we're an NGO or a charity, we get discount rates from Microsoft. The costs are not astronomical for us. To give you an example, Office 2019 would only cost 30 or 45 for us. We tend to use the on-premises version rather than the cloud version. The reason is that the subscription service works out more expensive after a few years than the on-premise version. We're not worried about having the bleeding edge stuff. We just want it to be functional.
If you have the standard edition of Windows server then with each copy of the operating system, you have two virtual machines for free. If you have a Windows Datacenter license then you have unlimited virtual machines for free. This is much better compared to ESXi or VMware, where each virtual machine requires its own license. In the Windows Datacenter, you can have as many as you want.
Systems Engineer at a educational organization with 11-50 employees
Real User
Feb 20, 2021
Our licensing fees are paid for as a package with the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. We have to pay for our data center licenses. This is a fairly expensive product because it balances the needs of security.
Do not immediately think of massive SANs and expensive servers. Instead, start small then evaluate and test properly to understand how workloads are treated. Microsoft, with Server 2019, gives you a massive number of tools to do this cost-effectively.
I wish the licensing was simpler and allowed for a greater number of VMs with the Microsoft standard licensing. Overall I think it's fair. The pricing is definitely fair.
System Administrator at a non-profit with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Nov 18, 2018
Microsoft should have not required a data center license for the new feature of Storage Spaces Direct. There is a new feature that comes with Hyper-V called "Storage Spaces Direct" What that storage does, it allows you to use the storage in host A and use the storage in host B, and make them work together like they're one shared storage array. The computers don't know that they're putting data on server A or B. To them, it looks like one big pool of disks. Before, we used to have to buy a separate storage array, external to the servers, and tie the servers to that array. But this new feature that comes with Hyper-V let's us use the storage inside the servers, it saves money. But Microsoft tacked on a higher price for their software to use that feature, and that was just terrible. We would be using that feature more if it did not demand a data center license.
Hyper-V is a hardware virtualization tool that allows users to create virtual computer environments with multiple operating systems on a single physical server. Each virtual machine has computer parts, such as memory, processor, storage, and networking, and acts like a standard computer - running its own operating system and software programs. Each component of the virtual machine can be configured to meet your specific requirements.
Hyper-V creates a cost-effective, stable, and productive...
The pricing for Hyper-V is a little bit higher, but it is below VMware. Currently, VMware has a high price in the market, and I think Microsoft has a competitive pricing structure, allowing us to migrate from VMware to Hyper-V.
The pricing and licensing for Hyper-V follow a standard pricing model for enterprise customers.
Until 2019, Hyper-V was a cost-effective solution because it was available as a free product. This influenced our decision to select it for virtualization consolidation.
Hyper-V's licensing costs are lower compared to VMware, making it cost-effective for smaller workloads.
It's a medium-priced solution when using Microsoft's Cloud program. The combination of hardware, software, and customer launching services balances cost and value. Initially, it was very expensive, and customers paid a high price, but now the costs are decreasing. Microsoft is motivated to shift workloads to Azure, which has led to more affordable licensing over time. It becomes progressively cheaper each year, making it a more attractive option for customers. With this program, a full server with a dual-core processor costs around seventy dollars monthly. There are additional costs to consider. If you want to use the full management features, that adds another thirty dollars per month. Additionally, SQL Server and Windows Server come with their costs. When you combine all these components, you might spend around seven hundred dollars per month.
We opted for a volume license.
The tool's pricing is cheap.
It's not expensive.
The product is a bit expensive, but it is worth the money. The product's price depends on the scale at which it is used in the company.
It is an inbuilt tool included in Windows Server. There is no cost associated with it if customers are already using Microsoft products.
Licensing cost depends on the edition you choose. There are two main options: Standard and Datacenter. With a Datacenter license, you can only create two virtual machines that are covered by the license itself. You can create more VMs, but they won't be licensed and could result in charges during an audit. Feature-wise, both Standard and Datacenter editions offer the same functionalities. The key difference lies in licensing. Standard includes licenses for only two VMs, while Datacenter allows you to run any number of VMs with a single Datacenter license. Datacenter also offers functionalities like Storage Replica and live migration that aren't available in Standard. The user doesn't have any control over the licensing process itself. You can create VMs regardless of licensing, but in Standard edition, they'll be considered unlicensed and subject to charges during an audit. Datacenter offers all the features of the Standard edition, plus the ability to run any number of licensed VMs as part of the Datacenter licensing cost. That's why Datacenter is more expensive.
The solution is not expensive, and the subscription is annual.
The license is free.
Hyper-V is expensive.
The product's price is low. We have to pay a one-time cost.
The product comes with Windows Server. It is updated every time there's a new version of Windows Server. There is no separate license for the solution. It is part of Windows Server. There's no additional cost other than having a backup solution to back up the virtual machines. It might just be the cost of any backup software license.
Since we have an agreement with Microsoft, the solution is not very expensive.
Cost-wise, what one gets is directly proportional to the price paid. If the need for capacity doubles, then the price also doubles. We get all the licenses for the solution through a third party.
The cost of the product actually comes under the Windows server purchase. A Windows Server standard license comes with Hyper-V. A minimum of eight core license units need to be purchased. The costs depend completely on your CPU and core central server.
We pay an annual license for Hyper-V, and it's on the expensive side.
We rent our licenses for this solution, which means that we also have access to premium-level support. The rental cost is payable annually and includes a number of products that work with this solution. It also allows us to run unlimited virtual machines without needing a license for each one.
Hyper-V is part of Windows Server, so there are no extra costs for the product.
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.
Hyper-V is included in the Microsoft Azure license for no extra cost. However, they charge for technical support calls on an hourly basis.
I'm not sure of the exact pricing of the solution. The cost may be a bit higher than VMware, however.
Hyper-V is free-of-charge.
We pay a one-off licensing fee. The cost is competitive.
There is a license to use this solution and it is an annual purchase.
Hyper-V is free when you buy Windows Server. You only have to pay for engaging in the management aspect in System Center.
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.
Licensing needs to be a lot easier to manage with Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware is easier.
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.
The licensing costs depend on the environment you have. If you have an environment of less than 10 or 30 VMs, It's nice to have a Hyper-V, but if you have more than 100 or 200, I would recommend using VCenter, VMware virtualization, especially for an on-premise solution.
I recommend Hyper-V to customers with budget constraints.
With Hyper-V, you don't have any issues about making license payments as it's a Microsoft product.
I think I'm okay with the cost. There are no monthly or yearly costs or additional costs.
We purchase the license from Microsoft. We renew the software assurance every three years.
Thanks to our enterprise agreement with Microsoft, Hyper-V is free for us.
There is a license required to use Hyper-V and there are bundle packages you can purchase making it cheaper than other solutions, such as VMware. Additionally, if there is a lot of guest OS that requires Windows, then Microsoft becomes cheaper. The cost of the usage is dependant on the customer's requirements and if the virtual network is flexible or not. Since VMware is more flexible it can become superior but not cheaper.
I was not involved in the acquisition of the solution, so I do not have exact details about the pricing.
There is a perpetual license to use the solution and there are additional fees for support.
There is a license required for this solution. I would recommend purchasing the support.
The solution is quite expensive when you compare it to other products. Microsoft solutions aren't cheap.
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.
I think Microsoft is a little better in pricing. But as I said, I'm not a pricing person, and I can't speak with great confidence on that. But in general, Microsoft is a little lower than BMI.
The costs in regards to upgrading the solution are quite high and it deters customers from changing versions. The old solution in 2012 was charging at a cost per server and the pricing was good at the time. In 2016, Microsoft upgraded the licensing, or changed the licensing scheme to per CPU within the server. Basically, if we wanted to upgrade to 2016, we would have had to pay double again for the same software. Therefore, we decided to go with another solution. The solution offers perpetual licensing.
Because we're an NGO or a charity, we get discount rates from Microsoft. The costs are not astronomical for us. To give you an example, Office 2019 would only cost 30 or 45 for us. We tend to use the on-premises version rather than the cloud version. The reason is that the subscription service works out more expensive after a few years than the on-premise version. We're not worried about having the bleeding edge stuff. We just want it to be functional.
If you have the standard edition of Windows server then with each copy of the operating system, you have two virtual machines for free. If you have a Windows Datacenter license then you have unlimited virtual machines for free. This is much better compared to ESXi or VMware, where each virtual machine requires its own license. In the Windows Datacenter, you can have as many as you want.
Our licensing fees are paid for as a package with the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. We have to pay for our data center licenses. This is a fairly expensive product because it balances the needs of security.
Microsoft Hyper-V is not expensive and is easy to set up.
The licensing is good for a data center environment.
The solution is not as expensive as other options, for example, specifically VMware.
It's included in the windows, so not it's very expensive.
Do not immediately think of massive SANs and expensive servers. Instead, start small then evaluate and test properly to understand how workloads are treated. Microsoft, with Server 2019, gives you a massive number of tools to do this cost-effectively.
The pricing and licensing is fine.
The Hyper-V pricing and licensing are very good.
The pricing and licensing is pretty good.
I wish the licensing was simpler and allowed for a greater number of VMs with the Microsoft standard licensing. Overall I think it's fair. The pricing is definitely fair.
The price is quite fair. It is not too expensive.
I do not have experience with pricing or licensing of the product.
This product costs less than other competitor products on the market.
In terms of the licensing, if you are using Microsoft Windows 100%, it is okay, but, when you start mixing other environments it becomes quite tricky.
I think it is expensive. I think if they want it to be more competitive, they should lower the price.
We have an agreement with Microsoft so this came with the solution. The pricing is okay for us.
The licensing of this solution is quite easy because the basic server of Hyper-V is free because it is included in the server license.
I do not have experience with the licensing of the product.
I use the free version of Hyper-V.
The pricing is not an issue for us because we have a licensing agreement with Microsoft. So we are given an 80% discount.
The licensing is pretty straightforward.
The pricing is competitive, and a bit less than other options on the market.
The pricing isn't too bad, because you can do the bare metal hyper-visor, and it is pretty fair. Other competitors are more expensive.
It is free for us so that was a prime factor for choosing this solution.
The pricing is not much. We have a very big environment, and pricing is no problem. We did not spend much time looking at other products, though.
We chose this solution because of the pricing and the simplicity of the product.
Microsoft should have not required a data center license for the new feature of Storage Spaces Direct. There is a new feature that comes with Hyper-V called "Storage Spaces Direct" What that storage does, it allows you to use the storage in host A and use the storage in host B, and make them work together like they're one shared storage array. The computers don't know that they're putting data on server A or B. To them, it looks like one big pool of disks. Before, we used to have to buy a separate storage array, external to the servers, and tie the servers to that array. But this new feature that comes with Hyper-V let's us use the storage inside the servers, it saves money. But Microsoft tacked on a higher price for their software to use that feature, and that was just terrible. We would be using that feature more if it did not demand a data center license.
I do not have any comments about pricing or licensing of the product.