We performed a comparison between Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Windows Server based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Users of Windows Server 2016 feel that it is a very user-friendly solution. Furthermore, they note that its active directory feature is highly valuable. They also note that it is highly scalable. However, many users feel that its security capabilities could be greatly improved. They also feel that the graphical interface could be better.
Comparison of Results: Based on the parameters we compared, Red Hat Enterprise Linux seems to be a slightly superior solution. All other things being more or less equal, our reviewers found Windows Server 2016 rather expensive to purchase and not as secure as it should be.
"Customer support is valuable."
"There are some nice integrations with scanning for vulnerabilities. That is the feature I have enjoyed the most because I am a security person, and that is my bread and butter."
"Red Hat Enterprise Linux's most valuable feature is its stability."
"The product is super easy to use."
"The containerized platform will help us use ROSA."
"The knowledge base offered by Red Hat Enterprise Linux is good. It is easy to parse through all of the knowledge base."
"The most valuable feature is the security insight and the internal firewall, which are common in all the machine tests that we use a lot."
"Management is portable and easily automated so deploying or installing packages and running updates is seamless."
"I like that it's a stable product. For me, it's working fine."
"I find Windows Server valuable for its flexibility and user-friendly interface."
"The solution is stable."
"The performance is very good."
"We have not contacted technical support."
"The product is reliable. It is powerful and we can make a lot of tools to work with it."
"The most valuable features of this solution are its performance, flexibility, and functionality."
"Overall, Windows Server 2016 provides a stable environment for some of the very large workloads that it is subjected to in our organization, and it is very easy to use."
"Linux overall needs improvement. They cannot go much beyond what Linus Torvalds's kernel implementation can do. I come from AIX, and there were very cool things in AIX that I am missing dearly, e.g., being able to support not only adding, but also reducing memory and number of processors. That is not supported on Linux right now, and it is the same for the mainstream file systems supported by Red Hat. There is no way of reducing a file system or logical volume. Whereas, in AIX, it was a shoo-in. These are the little things where we can say, "Ah, we are missing AIX for that.""
"The solution's modules feature could be better."
"Security could be increased."
"Could include additional security fefatures."
"The solution's operating system configuration and function selection could be improved."
"There's too much information on the support page sometimes."
"It would be very good if we can easily migrate from CentOS to Red Hat. We are about to move from CentOS to Red Hat. It would be great if they can give us a free version. Otherwise, we need to purchase licenses, which are quite expensive."
"As a developer, I would like to have access to this software so that I can install the tools that I need."
"The license is a one-time purchase. The cost could be less expensive. We have education pricing, so it's okay now because we pay less than other agencies."
"When it comes to the performance of this solution others are slightly better such as Linux."
"I believe that Windows Server can be somewhat vulnerable compared to other options, but its security can be improved. I also think that the setup process can be somewhat complex, depending on the applications involved. Regarding the security features of Windows Server, while it offers some built-in security measures, it's not sufficient to solely rely on them. Additional external devices such as firewalls may be needed for comprehensive protection. Deploying antivirus and firewall software on the server is advisable, but having an external firewall adds an extra layer of security. When migrating to Windows Server from previous versions or other platforms, noticeable improvements were observed, particularly in the utilization of graphical interfaces. Windows offers robust graphical guidance, especially compared to Linux or other systems like Acronis, making it easier to navigate and manage various functionalities."
"I would like to see better integration with other operating systems."
"The solution could offer higher availability."
"The scalability could be improved a bit."
"Sometimes we face some overload on the server."
"We've had a few minor compatibility issues."
More Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is ranked 1st in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 167 reviews while Windows Server is ranked 4th in Operating Systems (OS) for Business with 180 reviews. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is rated 8.8, while Windows Server is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) writes "Highly stable, good knowledge base, and reasonable price". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Windows Server writes "Easy to setup, stable and caters to my wide range of use cases but lacks user-friendly interface". Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) is most compared with Ubuntu Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Windows 10, CentOS and Oracle Linux, whereas Windows Server is most compared with Ubuntu Linux, Windows 10, Oracle Linux, Windows 11 and CentOS. See our Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) vs. Windows Server report.
See our list of best Operating Systems (OS) for Business vendors.
We monitor all Operating Systems (OS) for Business 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.