This post is also available in: Italian

Although there are some comparison between Hyper-V 2012 R2 (the version 4 of this product) and the existing vSphere 5.1 suite (like this one: Comparing WS2012 R2 Hyper-V and vSphere 5.1), I prefer keep consistency in the available product versions and compare the actual releases (and replace the precedent and old comparison between Hyper-V 2012 and vSphere 5.0).

The 3rd release of Microsoft Hyper-V and the VMware ESXi (and vSphere suite) 5.1 has similar technical features (and both of them are in the top-right Gartner quadrant), and probably for the first time, VMware has added one year ago some features (like the VMware vSphere Replication) to respond at the Hyper-V functionality (also some features, like Storage vMotion, has been moved to lower edition). I think that this a big value related to a good competition and customers are the first to gain the most advantages!

First to all, you can start from understanding the different terms used in each product: Know vSpeak? Learn to be Bilingual.

Then you must found some homogenous aspects to make the comparison, at least at technical level (but as written, it’s not so much important now). For numbers could be really easy, but numbers are not enough: for example memory management it’s still really different (VMware implement different technologies, Hyper-V only Dynamic Memory, only on some OSes)… so it’s not the same what you can do with the same amount of memory. For a suite comparison see also this post: Comparing Microsoft Cloud with VMware Cloud.

More complex is analyze the requirements and the depencies for each product: for example in Hyper-V the Active Directory it’s mandatory to build and Hyper-V Cluster (that it’s based on Microsoft Failover Cluster technology)… For VMware it’s not mandatory, but it’s really so simple have the VMware SSO and vCenter Center outside the Active Directory? From the other side vCenter Server it’s mandatory (but you can use also the virtual appliance) and System Center VMM it isn’t (for small environment you can use the Fail-Over snap-in or the CLI).

Manageability it’s also different, but this depends by the technical skills, so could be too much subjective. If you have Microsoft background, you may like the console aspect in Hyper-V that seems similar to a RDP client. Otherwise, if you have multi-OS background, you can appreciate the vSphere Web Client… Just to make two simple examples. In my opinion something is still missing in Hyper-V, in this area, like for example the guest OS information like hostname and IP addresses.

Hardware requirements are becoming much similar, considering that now also VMware require hardware assisted technologies. Hypervisor space requirements are completely different (ESXi could be installed on a 1 GB USB or SD card!) and also minimum memory requirements are singly different (ESXi require 2 GB of RAM, Hyper-V could run with less).

Scaling

As written memory management it’s really different and is not so easy to be compared. Dynamic Memory it’s better or worse? For supported OS, in my opinion, it’s an interesting approach (and VMware could implement it, considering that they already have the RAM hot-add feature), but of course having memory it’s always a better option. Remember also that the VMware Transparent Page Sharing feature have some limit with new OS (and also that it’s working on a page hash, and not on a real page comparison).

There are more difference in the supported virtual hardware: VMware has CPU and memory hot-add (but only from the Standard edition) and also NIC and other device hot-add and disk hot-extension. VMware support serial and paralle ports, USB device virtualization and also PCI passthought!

And VMware support more OS (also more Microsoft OS compared to Hyper-V). Also VMware can virtualize other hypervisor, including Hyper-V!

Storage

On storage side it’s really interesting the new VHDX format that permit huge virtual disk (I found that the 2 TB limit is becoming, in some cases, a big limit). But note that, in Hyper-V, you have still to use an IDE disk for the OS disk: this is not an issue in performance… but a big issue in scaling, considering that there is no way to hot-add space to an IDE disk!

Note that both support thin provisioning in production (Hyper-V called it Dynamic Disks). Hyper-V also have Differential disks (but not recomended in production).

Networking

Networking it’s becoming most similar and the integration of teaming feature in Windows Server 2012 it’s really useful to avoid complicated 3rd part tools. Note also that not all services required a teaming feature, like, for example, Fail-Over Cluster heartbeat (in Hyper-V) or VMware vMotion or Hyper-V Live Migration network (that can work with multiple networks).

But (a good) Hyper-V network desing remain a little more complicated compared to a VMware design, considering also that teaming policies could not be set (in Hyper-V) al Team Interface level.

High Availability & Resource control & Resiliency

Conclusions

One controversial aspect is the one about the real cost of implementing Hyper-V or vSphere: you can use cost per application (or service) metric (like suggested by VMware) or cost per host (like suggested by Microsoft). But honestly the software and hardware costs are not only that you have to consider. Implement and maintain has also other costs and those depends by you knowledge: for people skilled on Microsoft technologies maybe Hyper-V could be simplest, for people skilled on VMware technologies of course vSphere will become more easier. Note also that cost that VMware has a mandatory subscription (at least for the first year), Microsoft leave the Software Assurance as on option (but considering the new product lifecycle it’s becoming more a requirement rather than an option).

Anyway it’s almost true that the free version of Hyper-V give the most features (note that System Center VMM it’s not mandatory to handle and manage an Hyper-V cluster) and also there are not specific API limit in the free version (for example backup product for Hyper-V works fine). On the other side VMware differentiate with several editions, each with a different set of functions. For a more complete analysis of the free features have a look at this post: Real Hyper-V vs. VMware comparison: What you actually get for free (part 1 and part 2).

So Hyper-V it’s (or could be) a good choiche for SMB? Maybe, and with the support also of NAS storage (but only with SMB 3.0) or the share nothing storage approach could be more interesting (see also this post: Hyper-V over SMB makes virtualization more accessible for small and medium businesses), but we have to remember that the vSphere Essential+ edition could also fit almost the SMB requirements (and the 3 nodes limit is probably the upper limit for a SMB).

And for the Enterprise? Could Hyper-V be a reasonable choice? Again this is a difficult answer, probably here the gap is higher (considering also the different maturity level, different number of supported OS, different number of case studies).

Other site with a comparison between Hyper-V 2012 vs. vSphere 5.1:

• Comparison of Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V Versus vSphere 5.1
• Virtualization showdown: Microsoft Hyper-V 2012 vs. VMware vSphere 5.1
• Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V vs VMware vSphere 5.1
• Hyper-V vs. VMware vSphere – Networking (Thomas Maurer)
• Hyper-V V3 vs vSphere 5.1 video from E2EVC
• Microsoft point of view: Competitive Advantages of Windows Server 2012 Hyper-V over VMware vSphere 5.1
• VMware point of view: Comparing VMware vSphere and Microsoft Hyper-V

There is also a really good site to compare vSphere with Hyper-V with XenServer and RHEV is Virtualization Matrix.

Andrea Mauro

Virtualization, Cloud and Storage Architect. Tech Field delegate. VMUG IT Co-Founder and board member. VMware VMTN Moderator and vExpert 2010-24. Dell TechCenter Rockstar 2014-15. Microsoft MVP 2014-16. Veeam Vanguard 2015-23. Nutanix NTC 2014-20. Several certifications including: VCDX-DCV, VCP-DCV/DT/Cloud, VCAP-DCA/DCD/CIA/CID/DTA/DTD, MCSA, MCSE, MCITP, CCA, NPP.