We performed a comparison between Citrix Hypervisor and IBM PowerVM based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Virtualization Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The initial setup is easy."
"Citrix Hypervisor is simple to use."
"I've found the following features to be the most valuable: user personalization layer, app layering, provisioning, and notification services for integration between different domains."
"The onboarding process is pretty straightforward."
"Ability to move your virtual machines from one host to another."
"The solution's security is its most valuable aspect."
"Scripting can automate procedures."
"Citrix Hypervisor is quick to deploy and easy to manage."
"What I like about this solution, is that it is easy to configure."
"We always recommend PowerVM to our customers; it is better than most solutions."
"It is a complete solution."
"The case fileserver on the web server is the most valuable feature."
"PowerVM's most valuable features include swift optimisation and real-time migration."
"It is a stable solution with reliable performance."
"A valuable feature of PowerVM is a feature that is used for higher availability plus stream for posting, which is very useful. There's a flash copy feature which we are using. PowerVM itself, I know, helps us to control and manage our Oracle licensing compliance, since it is our hardware partitioning. This is very important. If you use VMware, there will be a licensing issue. This PowerVM is a hardware partitioner, which is very important for license compliance. We are happy with this solution."
"It's in English, so its exceptional qualities make the control environment more flexible, easier, more stable, and easy to recover after issues."
"There are several areas that need improvement including the stability of the networking stack and networking management."
"It needs to have a more robust backup solution."
"I find that the features in Citrix Hypervisor are not as rich as with VMware. It would be a benefit if they had some of the other features VMware has, such as the ability to expand a drive on the fly. You do not have to take down the machine to do it but in Citrix you do."
"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."
"The licensing costs are too high on the solution. They should work to make the costs more reasonable."
"Integration with other vendors and other applications could be improved."
"Network management needs improvement because it is not very stable."
"There's a learning curve, especially for those coming from a Microsoft background. Setting it up and managing it can introduce some complexity."
"The solution is quite pricey."
"As understand it, IBM sells all its hardware to Lenovo, and only PCs servers are managed by IBM. It's uncertain how much longer IBM will continue in this way, especially with the current trend of transitioning from on-premises to cloud and hybrid models. The market is evolving. Given this market shift, it's essential to identify areas for improvement. IBM has introduced the PowerVM Series, including Linux, which is a positive step. However, customers are already moving towards x86 servers due to cost considerations. The cost of PowerVM compared to x86 servers appears to be a significant factor."
"PowerVM's platform build and performance could be improved."
"To make it a ten, I would like for them to add automation and configuration tools in order to help use the manager."
"This solution is lacking the ability to have servers act as a cluster, such as in VMware. IBM has come out with a feature similar to VMware's vCenter but it is not as mature. They need to add LPM shared-nothing feature, such as in vMotion."
"The solution should be advanced to fit with the container constantly."
"IBM should review the price of this solution in my opinion; it is too high."
"The program has very limited solutions for the virtualization of containers"
Citrix Hypervisor is ranked 8th in Server Virtualization Software with 46 reviews while IBM PowerVM is ranked 9th in Server Virtualization Software with 25 reviews. Citrix Hypervisor is rated 8.2, while IBM PowerVM is rated 8.4. The top reviewer of Citrix Hypervisor writes "Allows us to allocate CPU, memory, storage, and network resources across VMs and minimizes downtime in case of hardware failure or maintenance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of IBM PowerVM writes "A stable system for high-end data processing with a great support structure". Citrix Hypervisor is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, Hyper-V, KVM and Oracle VM VirtualBox, whereas IBM PowerVM is most compared with VMware vSphere, Hyper-V, KVM, Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) and Oracle VM VirtualBox. See our Citrix Hypervisor vs. IBM PowerVM report.
See our list of best Server Virtualization Software vendors.
We monitor all Server Virtualization Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
