Oracle VirtualBox is an open source, cross-platform, virtualization software, enables developers to deliver code faster by running multiple operating systems on a single device.
N/A
Pricing
Hyper-V
Oracle VirtualBox
Editions & Modules
Developer
$24.95
per month
Bronze
$49.00
per month
Silver
$89.00
per month
Gold
$135.00
per month
Platinum
$199.00
per month
No answers on this topic
Offerings
Pricing Offerings
Hyper-V
Oracle VirtualBox
Free Trial
No
No
Free/Freemium Version
No
Yes
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
No
No
Entry-level Setup Fee
No setup fee
No setup fee
Additional Details
—
—
More Pricing Information
Community Pulse
Hyper-V
Oracle VirtualBox
Considered Both Products
Hyper-V
Verified User
Anonymous
Chose Hyper-V
VMware ESXi, VMware Fusion, VMware Workstation Pro and AWS Organizations
VMware Workstation Player and Pro are now free for Small Businesses, but Pro used to be paid and quite expensive. There are compatibility issues between those products and Windows hosts, giving that Microsoft has their own hypervisor platform already. Also, if you use Linux, …
Considering the maturity of ESXi, Hyper-V is something I would definitely consider using in future jobs or organisations. We selected Hyper-V after many years of using ESXi; several factors led us to this change, including a poor support experience with VMware, and the lower …
ESXi, to me, seems to do things better in almost every way. It is much quicker to deploy ESXi compared to Hyper-V. I also feel like Hyper-V requires more frequent updates so I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing.
VMware is the pioneer of virtualization but when you compare it with Hyper-V, VMware lacks the flexibility of hardware customization and configuration options Hyper-V has also GPU virtualization still not adequate for both platforms. VMware has better graphical interface and …
I switched to VMware Workstation Pro, after using Hyper-V for several years. The thing I missed in Hyper-V was the network management which has too less configuration options compared to VMWare Workstation Pro. Also managing the snapshots was more user-friendly in VMWare …
The ease of use and essentially free license made the adoption of Hyper-V in some parts of my current and one of my previous organizations a no-brainer. For sure it's not the best product on the market, but it will do the job just fine in a lot of use cases. Automated …
Though Docker provides cross-platform support and isolation, Hyper-V provides true virtualization over the host OS and creates boundary over guest OS that protects the security threats, resource-hogging on the host OS.
While many have additional features or lower overhead the ease of use and low-cost licensing make Hyper-V our preferred choice for most clients. And because we are mostly a Microsoft shop and it is built on Windows when we need to troubleshoot the hypervisor itself we already …
It is much cheaper and has at least the same functionality as what we use. It integrates better in our Windows environment and it works more familiar with similar tools that we already use. And it is on fewer vendors, much easier for support. Very happy with the switch from …
Overall, VMWare appears to be more full-featured and perhaps a bit more robust, but the integration and no-cost factors of Hyper-V won the day. We have had no issues with Hyper-V since instigating it five years ago and do not regret the decision.
President, Engineering Architect for Virtualization and Computing Systems.
Chose Hyper-V
Hyper-V is much cheaper and does not have the license requirement of VMware. Hyper-V is not a product that scales like VMware and not well suited to a large datacenter.
Hyper-V is well suited for environmental testing purposes. Let's say you want to learn or test a new OS for a product or just for learning purposes. You are able to boot up this os in just a few mins on Hyper-V and then start working, testing, and learning with no money out of …
I used VMware vSphere at another company. However, for infrastructure with only two virtual machines, the VMware license cost is not worth it, because with the Windows Server Standard license you have the possibility to install two virtual servers at no extra cost.
We selected Hyper-V because it was built in to Windows and had no licensing costs. The functionality was similar, VMware seemed like a more premium product, and had support. But those are the bare minimum when competing with an embedded solution. VMware is reported to be …
Hyper-V performs very well in environment running windows operating systems and performs well under various workloads. The replication and recovery features of hyper-v work well but lack some of usability of tools such as Zerto, VMware replication and site recovery manager to …
You already have to purchase the licensing for Windows Servers so why not bundle that in with the cost of the hypervisor. VMware seems to be a better virtualization platform with a better dashboard, but if you aren't managing hundreds of physical servers across multiple data …
We went with Hyper-V since it's backed by Microsoft. Most of our businesses use MS, so going with supported products helps when we need to open a case if we run into issues. There are other alternatives, but the ease and support of Hyper-V make it our go-to product for …
Microsoft's virtualization with Hyper-V has given us a great opportunity to increase the availability of services, thus increasing the satisfaction of our end user. With Microsoft virtualization, we have increased availability as follows:
Hyper-V is not only a free virtualization solution for businesses, but it's also a very stable and very intuitive environment. The learning curve for Hyper-V is very simple and there are a lot of resources online for Hyper-V. VMWare is actually the leader in the virtualization …
Hyper-V is powerful and virtualizes Windows exceptionally well, with less tweaking. It is also cheaper, and allows our clients to budget more for more frequent expansion. Its only real competitor in my opinion is VMware, and that is because vCenter is much more intuitive than …
I really do not have a bunch of experience with VMWare or VirtualBox which I know are two other well-known Virtualization software. I have used VirtualBox a few times when I was in college to learn other operating systems, but I don't recall them being as easy to get going and …
Oracle VirtualBox is the better choice due to its cost-effectiveness, ease of use and feature set. However VMware Workstation is more suitable due to its superior performance, better features and better integration with enterprise tools. VMware Workstation also provides a …
It always depends on the usecase which product is better suited. But generally, Oracle VM VirtualBox is very easy to set up on every operating system and is intuitive in the usage. Compared to VMware Workstation it offers less features but for a basic setup, I prefer Oracle VM …
Oracle's solution is entirely free, although a bit clumsy and visually outdated. Hyper-V can and will be a better match due to having more resources, offering full Microsoft Support, and being focused mainly on corporative uses, but for a small environment, it can be like …
VirutalBox is very similar to using Vmware with the slight difference in appearance and what might be considered a less polished look. However, what it lacks in polish and looks it makes up for in functionality, easy of use and the wide range of operating systems and features …
While Parallels Desktop has always positioned itself better than VirtualBox, it will never be able to compete against free and open-source software. Yes, it is true that it has some extra seasonings that can make the scale move towards Parallels at the time of the election, …
VMWare Workstation required VMWare Workstation Pro to create the system before we could use it. The license requirements for the latter was the issue as we needed this for dev/test environments as well as to show POC on virtualization without necessarily incurring a cost at the …
Docker, and automated machine provisioning in DevOps often uses the metaphor "treat your machines like cattle, not pets." VirtualBox's intended use is definitely in the creation, management and use of "pet" machines, whereas many similar products are more in the "cattle" …
The main benefits of Oracle VM VirtualBox are its licensing terms (it is free), its open-source nature, and its active community. However, its various competitors do a much better job when it comes to both ease of use and, most importantly, speed. For example, Parallels Desktop …
We've used VMware, and continue to use it for some projects. But, in my experience, the latest updates to VMware run very slowly, particularly on macOS. Many blog posts offer tweaks to help speed up VMware, but none of these tweaks make a significant difference.
Front-End Web Developer, Office of Mediated Education
Chose Oracle VirtualBox
We primarily use Oracle VM VirtualBox because it's free, and it is the default provider for Vagrant, which we use for our development VMs. The user interface of VirtualBox looks a little clunky in macOS, but I actually almost never see the main VirtualBox interface because I …
With regards to how some of the other virtualization software packages stack up again VirtualBox, I would say VirtualBox is ahead of the game especially when it comes to cost savings, as there is no ongoing cost for running the software. A big disadvantage to one of the other …
As I mentioned earlier, Oracle VM VirtualBox and VMWare Workstation offer roughly the same type of features. One of the main differences is that VMWare Workstation is a commercial product while Oracle VM VirtualBox is open-source. Resource utilization and graphics support is …
VirtualBox is just as robust and as functional as the VMware desktop product. It actually has more features and in some ways is easier to work with. I've also found that VirtualBox supports newer operating systems better than VMware Workstation. There's also the cost advantage …
I have used Parallels as well as VMware Workstation and have always returned to VirtualBox. VirtualBox is free which makes it easy to try. Compared to the others, it does everything I need. In +7 years I have not been able to justify the cost of a Parallels Desktop or VMware …
We feel like we made a good decision going with Oracle VM VirtualBox because it was more enterprise ready. They had great customer success team and proper API compatibility which allowed for great integration into our legacy tools. The support we got from the development …
It's free, fast, and really well built. Obviously, VMware is the key competitor, but I consider that more of an enterprise app for building and managing entire networks of virtual systems, whereas VirtualBox is fantastic as a personal VM tool. What it lacks in enterprise-grade …
It's much more useful than VMware workstation player because you can't edit anything at all with that free version of vmWare. This is just about as capable as VMware fusion and Workstation until you pay even more to use vSphere, and then you start having enterprise features.
In a Windows environment, Docker would not even be possible, to begin with. Also, on the way around, having a Linux based Machine, without Oracle VM VirtualBox, one would have to create a partitioned disk and enable it at boot time in order to be able to run Windows in such a …
Because Hyper-V is a Microsoft product and based on Windows OS, creating virtual Windows servers and clients are easy. When we want to test our group policies it it best to do it on hyper-v environment then implement to production clients. The same goes with operating system quality and features updates as well as operating system upgrades.
It is best suited when you want to have different operating systems on your laptop or desktop. You can easily switch between operating systems without the need to uninstall one. In another scenario, if you expect some application to damage your device, it would be best to run the application on the VM such that the damage can only be done to the virtual machine. It is less appropriate when time synchronization is very important. At times the VMs run their own times differently from the host time and this may cause some losses if what you doing is critical. Another important thing to take note of is the licensing of the application you want to run your VM. Some licenses do not allow the applications to be run on virtual servers so it is not appropriate to use the VM at this time.
Virtualization - Hyper-V does this well and I feel like it might be the best and easiest software out there to use. I am able to spin up virtual environments very quickly. Hyper-V also has a "quick" add feature where you don't even need to have the OS ISO on your computer and you can choose between Windows 10, Server or Ubuntu.
Setup and Management - Hyper-V is pretty straight forward. When I first started using this it seemed a bit confusing, but after a couple of days of playing with it you end up finding out everything is pretty straight forward and really not that complicated.
Just turn off the VM and go into the settings and you can manage the Storage, Memory, and CPU's.
Setting a VM up on a Domain is super easy and you can create a static mac address for the machine so in Windows DHCP you can use that static mac address to give that VM an IP it can use every time it boots up.
I think the best feature is the ability to create "Checkpoints" - If you are going to be doing something over and over and you need to start from the same point with each test you can setup your VM the way you need it prior to testing. Create a Checkpoint. Do your tests and then revert back to the Checkpoint so the system will be exactly how you had it setup prior to testing. Then you can go on and do your second set of tests and so on.
Another great thing is the ability to just backup the vhdx file.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this review we run most everything from Hyper-V. I make weekly backup of the vhdx files which are the Virtual Environment files.
This is an extreme example, but if the building ever caught on fire I could go out and buy like 15 PCs at Best Buy and load up Hyper-V on them and just import the vhdx files and be back up and running fairly quickly.
Can spin up multiple VMs on a host-only network that speak to each other and allow for interesting test environments spun up at will.
Cross-platform functionality allows me to run it on my Linux Desktop and know that tutorials I make with it could be approached by someone on a Windows or Mac OSX system. Hyper-V is limited to Windows, and VMware Workstation requires a license (VMware Player is free, but is not open-source and is more limited in comparison to VirtualBox).
If you are testing tools like Vagrant and Test-Kitchen, VirtualBox often seems to have the highest amount of support and documentation when it comes to compatibility (though, many people do use Hyper-V or VMware Workstation without issues).
I would love to see Hyper-V add a better remote control feature. As it is, it uses RDP to connect to any VM in the host. This is old technology and slowly deprecating. It would be significantly more useful to have a controlled interface for remoting to the VM's that is much more like Teamviewer, LogMeIn, etc.
The memory footprint is high, and requires above 8 GB of memory to run an Ubuntu VM smoothly (considering developing inside ubuntu OS inside a MacBook Pro).
Some known issues with OVF/OVA images import/export. We had the issue of some sections in OVF being ignored (especially Startup and Install sections).
Some intermittent issues when mounting external hard drives and trying to access them from within the running VM.
Cheap and easy is the name of the game. It has great support, it doesn't require additional licenses, it works the same if it is a cluster or stand-alone, and all the servers can be centrally managed from a system center virtual machine manager server, even when located at remote sites.
It is very easy to configure new virtual machines and manage them. But you have to use different interfaces to perform various tasks. Especially as soon as it comes to clustering you have to use at least two different interfaces (Hyper-V Manager and Failover-Cluster Manager) to perform all necessary tasks. The newly released Windows Admin Center is a way into the right direction to get all management tasks into one single interface.
I love using the Graphical User Interface. The VirtualBox Manager is very easy to understand and use. You can quickly create, configure and manage all your virtual machines in one window. It makes operating virtual machines easy and simple. When using VBoxManage it gives the user comprehensive control over VirtualBox so that you can use automation and scripting at the command-line interface
In the past 2 years our Hyper-V servers have only had a handful of instances where the VM's on them were unreachable and the physical Hyper-V server had to be restarted. One time this was due to a RAM issue with the physical box and was resolved when we stopped using dynamic memory in Hyper-V. The other times were after updates were installed and the physical box was not restarted after the updates were installed.
Hyper-V itself works quickly and rarely gave performance issues but this can be more attributed to the physical server specifications that the actual Hyper-V software in my opinion as Hyper-V technically just utilizes config files such as xml, and a data drive file (VHD, VHDX, etc) to perform its' duties.
Most of the time, you can find support on the thousands of websites, blogs and community sites that are out there. Very much Internet supported, and if you don't stray too far away from the standard setup of Hyper-v, you shouldn't go wrong. I've had to call a couple of times, and Microsoft was very good at resolving my problem. it seem that Microsoft has heard from people and their support system, and are doing a much better job in this
We had in person training from a third party and while it was very in depth it was at a beginner's level and by the time we received the training we had advanced past this level so it was monotonous and redundant at that point. It was good training though and would have provided a solid foundation for learning the rest of Hyper-V had I had it from the beginning.
The training was easy to read and find. There were good examples in the training and it is plentiful if you use third party resources also. It is not perfect as sometimes you may have a specific question and have to spend time learning or in the rare case you get an error you might have to research that error code which could have multiple causes.
initial configuration of hyper-v is intuitive to anyone familiar with windows and roles for basic items like single server deployments, storage and basic networking. the majority of the problems were with implementing advanced features like high availability and more complex networking. There is a lot of documentation on how to do it but it is not seamless, even to experienced virtualization professionals.
Considering the maturity of ESXi, Hyper-V is something I would definitely consider using in future jobs or organisations. We selected Hyper-V after many years of using ESXi; several factors led us to this change, including a poor support experience with VMware, and the lower cost of Hyper-V. We looked at other options including Nutanix and Hyper Converged Infrastructure, however with such a busy team we didn't have the time to learn this completely new technology stack, whereas (whilst also new) Hyper-V had a much easier learning curve.
VirutalBox is very similar to using Vmware with the slight difference in appearance and what might be considered a less polished look. However, what it lacks in polish and looks it makes up for in functionality, easy of use and the wide range of operating systems and features it supports without the need of buying the full professional edition
Nothing is perfect but Hyper-V does a great job of showing the necessary data to users to ensure that there is enough resources to perform essential functions. You can also select what fields show on the management console which is helpful for a quick glance. There are notifications that can be set up and if things go unnoticed and a Hyper-V server runs out of a resource it will safely and quickly shut down the VM's it needs to in order to ensure no Hardware failure or unnecessary data loss.
The only problem I have found is that the deployment is dependent and intrinsically linked to the Host OS. This is different from bare metal solutions which remove that dependency on a Host OS. The latter is more reliable and removes a layer of potential failure.