We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and KVM based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below
Comparison Results: Hyper-V is the clear winner in this comparison it is easy to install, robust and high performing. Hyper-V, as a Microsoft product, also offers stable and ongoing customer support.
"It utilizes the hardware so there are multiple applications running on one hypervisor."
"It works very well. Its performance, stability, and redundancy are all very dependable."
"It is a great advantage for any company that is using a Microsoft Windows server."
"The solution is stable."
"It is very easy to install. It can be done in a day."
"The virtualized applications and real time audition of the VMA is quite a good feature."
"The initial setup is very easy."
"The most valuable feature is that it is user-friendly and easy to use."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"It offers a high-availability environment."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"The backup site could be better. We used to face a lot of issues, and we are looking to solve that now. We are in the process of moving all the infrastructure to the cloud. It could also use more integration on the management part. We also need more integration on the monitoring sites."
"The operating system is very, very heavy."
"Many vendors, such as Cisco and HPE, are discontinuing support for Hyper-V as they believe it does not have a significant market share."
"Hyper-V serves its purpose, but some areas may not be as feature-rich as alternatives like VMware ESXi."
"Hyper-V systems need a lot of admin effort because security updates and monthly updates require rebooting after the update."
"If you have a bigger implementation, you need more tools to coexist with many, many features that are not present in the base Hyper-V."
"The initial setup was complex. It was nearly six years ago, but I remember it was complicated."
"An improvement I suggest is having more guest operating systems."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"In our setup, we do not have any dashboards or orchestration, and it is hard to manage. We have 25 gig network cards, but the software driver we have only supported 10 gigs."
"Technical support could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an improved user interface and dashboard. This type of improvement will make it easy or help our engineers understand the solution from a requirement point of view."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while KVM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "It's a low-cost solution that enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation and Oracle VM. See our Hyper-V vs. KVM 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.