We performed a comparison between Hyper V and Oracle VM Virtual Box based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results:
Our users like Hyper-V best. Many of our users are deeply committed to the Microsoft ecosystem, so it is an excellent seamless fit. Additionally, users find the failover feature very important and, as Hyper-V is not a heavy solution, it does not overuse resources. Hyper-V makes it easy to move any virtual machine across push servers without complication. Finally, Hyper-V is very easy to manage and offers great performance.
"It is very easy to install. It can be done in a day."
"Microsoft has documentation that is easy to find, helpful, and readily available."
"It is easy to use, and it is stable. It is a good solution."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"It allowed us to add on servers and fix things in an expedient manner."
"Live migration, SMB3."
"Hyper-V is much easier to deploy because Hyper-V is already installed inside Windows Server OS. You only need to turn on Hyper-V as a service, and then you can use it. The most convenient thing about Hyper-V is the operating system."
"The solution allows us to take advantage of our physical environment."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the ability to manage multiple operating systems through one application."
"The flexibility as well as performance wise and as well as data volume, we have huge volume stored."
"This product is extremely easy to install, use, has a great GUI and is incredibly stable."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that there is no cost because it is open source."
"This is a good and easy solution for running virtual environments."
"The flexibility and the closed platform, so it allows you to run in multiple platforms, Windows, Linux, Macintosh."
"The installation is easy."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The security part of the product is an area of concern where improvements are required."
"In my opinion, read the documentation carefully. If you do not, you will have problems."
"I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved."
"Hyper-V isn't a lightweight solution like VMware. Management could be more straightforward. Even as far as disk management tools are concerned, it would be better if that could be made simpler. The same applies to performance."
"We have our cluster connected to a Dell EMC VNX (SAN). The Hyper-V nodes are on Cisco UCS blades, and everything is interconnected via fiber. I attempted to use a virtual Fibre Channel connection to present a SAN volume to a VM but was not able to make that work."
"There is a hard limitation of 20 gigs per file with Dropbox, so you've got to overcome that by chunking the zip files into something smaller and manageable."
"There's room for improvement in Hyper-V. One area I've personally encountered issues with is live migration. Sometimes during live migrations, the process gets stuck in a certain state. This can happen with replication as well. It's not necessarily a major problem, but at times, the error messages aren't very informative. They don't clearly explain why the migration failed."
"The corrupted volume is a problem."
"This solution needs improvement with the business continuity planning, disaster and recovery management and using centralized data storage."
"The solution is a bit less stable than I would like."
"One valuable feature would be for it to work right the first time but it doesn't necessarily do that."
"I find the solution to be incredibly unstable, constantly falling over and not working properly."
"The solution needs to improve the methods used for starting and stopping the machine."
"This should have better support for multiple network cards and some parts of the GUI should be improved."
"The AI and the UI could be improved. The user interface is a little outdated and the AI is not very attractive."
"It would be good if we could use Hyper-V Windows subsystems with Linux and VirtualBox on the same instance. Currently, to be able to use VirtualBox, we have to restart the machine into an instance of Windows where Hyper-V is disabled, which is understandably very inconvenient."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while Oracle VM VirtualBox is ranked 5th in Server Virtualization Software with 61 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while Oracle VM VirtualBox is rated 8.2. 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 Oracle VM VirtualBox writes "The solution is versatile, simple to use, and stable". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, KVM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas Oracle VM VirtualBox is most compared with Proxmox VE, KVM, Oracle VM, VMware Workstation and VMware vSphere. See our Hyper-V vs. Oracle VM VirtualBox 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.