Alternatives to VMware – Here are 7 Virtualization Solutions to Replace VMware

Following Broadcom’s acquisition of VMware in late 2023 and the significant changes to the licensing model – shifting from perpetual per-socket licenses to per-core subscription-based pricing – many organizations face cost increases of 2-3 times their previous expenses.

One of the roles that I have in my company is Cloud and VMware architect. Under this role I’ve experienced firsthand how these changes have impacted our company and many other organizations across the industry.

One of the main discussions we have when meeting with other IT professionals in this industry is that everyone is looking for ways to get out of the Vmware ecosystem. All of them evaluate alternatives for their virtual machine workloads.

The following article provides a brief analysis and examines some viable alternatives to VMware vSphere that offer robust virtualization capabilities, often with improved cost structures and modern features designed for today’s hybrid cloud environments.

Keep in mind that the list below is not comprehensive but gives a good overview in my opinion of the various alternatives out there.

I have personally researched the following alternative solutions but please feel free to point-out anything that I have missed or anything that you don’t agree with me.

1. Microsoft Hyper-V

Overview

Microsoft’s Hyper-V solution is one of the older competitors to Vmware. I’ve known Hyper-V since the days it was a standalone free hypervisor product in Windows 2008.

Now, Hyper-V comes as free standalone Hyper-V Server 2019 (with extended support up to 2029) but in Windows Server 2022 (and later) it comes as a Server Role inside Windows (the Hyper-V Windows 2019 standalone product has been discontinued and will not be available anymore).

It is a Type-1 hypervisor, just like Vmware, that provides enterprise-grade virtualization capabilities with strong integration to Microsoft’s ecosystem.

Because my company is a Windows shop (we have hundreds of Windows Data Center Licenses already purchased), Hyper-V is one of the top options to replace Vmware in the near future.

License Cost Between Hyper-V and Vmware

You can license Hyper-V with either Standard Edition or Data Center Edition Windows licenses.

• The Standard Edition allows 2 free guest VMs on each physical host.
• The Data Center Edition allows unlimited guest VMs on each physical host.

Moreover, when you license each Hyper-V host, all Windows Server VMs that you have on the hosts do not require any extra Windows license (because you are already paying the Hyper-V Windows Server license).

So, the cost comparison between Vmware and Hyper-V (when running Windows VM workloads) is the following:

• Vmware Cost = Vmware License + Windows Server License
• Hyper-V Cost = Windows Server license only

So the cost of running Windows VMs on Hyper-V will be much cheaper compared to Vmware.

Just to give you an example, the Windows Licensing comes as 2-core pack, so if you have a physical host server with 2 CPU sockets of 16 cores each one (total of 32 cores) than you need to buy 16 Windows License packs for that host.

If you buy the Data Center License option, you can run unlimited VMs on that host and the Windows VMs will not require any extra license.

Key Features of Hyper-V

• Hardware virtualization using Windows hypervisor
• Live migration capabilities
• Virtual Machine Connection for remote management
• Integration with Failover Clustering provides high availability for VMs. If one host fails, the VMs on that host are automatically moved to another host
• Support for both Windows and Linux guest operating systems
• PowerShell, Hyper-V Manager, VMM, Windows Admin Center for management
• Secure boot and shielded virtual machines
• Various storage types supported such as Local Storage, external SAN or NAS, Storage Spaces Direct etc.  

Pros

– Cost-effective if already owning Windows Licenses: If you already have Windows Data Center licenses, then you can run unlimited Windows and Linux VMs, making it a cost effective solution. Windows Server VMs will not require additional license.

– Deep Windows integration: Seamless integration with Active Directory and Microsoft services

– Comprehensive management tools: Hyper-V Manager, PowerShell cmdlets, Windows Admin Center, System Center Virtual Machine Manager (VMM).

– Enterprise features: High availability, live migration, and disaster recovery built-in

– Security features: Shielded VMs and secure boot capabilities

– Backup: Veeam backup is supported (this is what we use as well).

Cons

– Windows-centric environment: Optimized primarily for Windows VM workloads (although Linux is supported just fine).

– Limited cross-platform management: Best managed through Windows-based tools

– Hardware compatibility: Requires specific processor features (SLAT)

Use Cases

Ideal for organizations with existing Windows infrastructure and those requiring tight integration with Microsoft services. If you already have lots of Windows VMs running on Vmware (and already paying for Windows server licenses), then Hyper-V will be cost effective.

2. Proxmox Virtual Environment

Overview

Proxmox VE is an open-source virtualization platform that combines KVM virtualization and LXC (Linux Containers) into a single comprehensive solution (together with Software Defined Storage and Networking).

Built on Debian Linux, it provides enterprise-grade features through an intuitive web-based interface via which you can provision and manage both classic Virtual Machines and Containerized applications as well.

We are using Proxmox in one department of my company (very small environment with 15-20 VMs) and we are very happy with it (it just works).

However, personally I would be reluctant to use Proxmox as a full-scale Vmware replacement for larger environments.

Our Vmware infrastructure consists of tens of physical hosts and thousands of VMs. I wouldn’t fully replace such an environment with Proxmox in my opinion. However, for smaller scale infrastructures, Proxmox can be a great alternative.

The consensus after speaking with several colleagues and other IT professionals seems to be that Proxmox is a viable alternative for smaller environments, especially Linux-focused ones, but may not be ready to fully replace VMware in large enterprise environments that rely heavily on advanced VMware features and integrations. 

Key Features

• KVM-based virtual machines and LXC containers (side-by-side)
• Ability to run both Windows and Linux workloads
• No feature licence wall (all the features are available)
• Web-based management interface which is user friendly
• Built-in backup and restore capabilities (Veeam is supported as well)
• High availability clustering
• Native VMware GUI migration tool available.
• Storage support includes both local storage (disks on the servers) or shared external storage (NAS, SAN).
• Live migration for both VMs and containers (both compute and storage migration).

Pros

– Open-source and free: No licensing costs for core functionality

– Unified platform: Manages both VMs and containers from single interface

– Modern web UI: Intuitive browser-based management

– Built-in backup: Integrated backup and disaster recovery (although Veeam backup is also supported)

– Community support: Active community and extensive documentation

Cons

– Higher Learning curve: Requires Linux administration knowledge

– Support model: Enterprise support available but at additional cost

– Limited ecosystem: Smaller third-party integration compared to commercial solutions

– Maturity and Scale: Not very mature compared to Vmware or other big commercial solutions. Might not be suitable for larger infrastructure environments.

– Limited Snapshot Support: You can’t have snapshots for every storage type (snapshots are supported only on specific storage types).

Use Cases

Perfect for organizations seeking cost-effective virtualization, those comfortable with Linux environments, small to medium businesses requiring both VM and container support, and development/testing environments.

3. Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization Engine

Overview

After Red Hat has been acquired by IBM, they have improved and advanced their virtualization solutions to new highs.

Red Hat OpenShift has been around for some time and is well known for their container-based application support (using Kubernetes).

Recently they have launched a new offering, “Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization Engine”.

This solution is a streamlined solution focused exclusively on VM workloads, offering the virtualization capabilities of Red Hat OpenShift without the full container platform features.

In my company for example, our virtualization needs are exclusively based on classic Virtual Machine workloads. We don’t need for now any containerized applications etc.

Therefore, the OpenShift Virtualization Engine is a good candidate for Vmware vSphere replacement.

Let’s see some key features:

Key Features

• Based on the proven KVM Hypervisor.
• Support for unlimited VMs on hosts.
• Each host license covers dual CPU sockets up to 128 cores
• Built-in migration tools and frameworks (migration toolkit for virtualization)
• You can create and manage both Linux and Windows VMs
• Kubernetes-based virtual machine orchestration
• Live migration of VMs between nodes
• File System Storage (e.g NFS) and Block Based Storage (e.g FC SAN)

Pros

– Migration assistance: Built-in tools for transitioning from other platforms

– Scalable architecture: Kubernetes foundation enables massive scale

– Enterprise support: Backed by Red Hat’s enterprise support

– Modern operations: GitOps and infrastructure-as-code approach. You can transition to modern containerized apps more easily.

– Performance optimization: Designed for demanding workloads

– Hosts with up to 128 Cores : Each host license allows up to 128 cores per bare-metal socket pair. You can fill up each host with tens of VMs thus lowering costs.

Cons

– Kubernetes complexity: Requires understanding of container orchestration concepts

– Learning curve: Different from traditional virtualization management

– Conceptual Differences:  OpenShift Virtualization is conceptually different from vSphere and much of its functionality comes from the underlying OpenShift Container Platform

Use Cases

Although the OpenShift Virtualization Engine product offering does not include containers (it focuses on Virtual Machines only), it gives you a path to modernizing apps (using containers) in the future.

Suitable for enterprises seeking modernization, organizations planning container adoption, environments requiring both VMs or containers in the future, and companies wanting enterprise-grade support with modern architectural approaches.

4. Nutanix

Nutanix provides a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) platform that integrates compute, storage, and networking into a unified system.

It is analogous to Vmware HCI concept whereby the compute element is offered by vSphere, the storage element is offered by VSAN and the networking element is offered by NSX.

So, with Nutanix be prepared that the whole architecture and philosophy is that you will have local disks for storage (no external storage) and also that your physical server hardware must be purpose-build and certified to be compatible with Nutanix.

From my research, the consensus with this product is that it is better suited for greenfield deployments, whereby you will build everything from scratch, or in cases where your old hardware must be replaced with new machines.

Nutanix runs on Purpose-Built NX Nodes or other certified OEM server models such as Cisco, HP, Lenovo, Fujitsu, Dell etc.

Key Features

• Hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) architecture.
• Unified management across hybrid environments (on-prem, cloud etc).
• Uses the AHV Hypervisor (based on KVM).
• “Nutanix Move” is a cross-hypervisor mobility solution to migrate VMs and files with minimal downtime (e.g between Vmware ESXi to AHV)
• Uses the AOS Storage technology on which their Software Defined Storage is based upon. 
• Uses Prism Central as the centralized management platform (similar to vCenter in Vmware)
• Licensing Tiers: Starter, Pro, Ultimate (based on CPU Cores)

Pros

– Professionals praise Nutanix support as top-notch. Technical issues will be taken care off easily by their support team. 

– Data Locality feature increases performance dramatically. 

– Proven platform: Trusted by thousands of organizations globally

– Updates work great with their Life Cycle Manager (LCM).

– Their own NX hardware servers are reliable and you will get the best support possible.

Cons

– HCI requirement: Must adopt hyper-converged architecture.

– Cost structure: May require significant upfront investment. In most cases, Nutanix will not save you much money compared to Vmware (you must do your cost exercise though before deciding).

– No option to use external storage (NAS, SAN etc)

– When you will need to replace hardware servers down the road, it might be a difficult migration process (because of the HCI architecture).

Use Cases

Nutanix is mostly for greenfield environments in my opinion. For an organization planning to introduce a virtualization platform in their data centers from scratch, then Nutanix might be a good option.

5. Citrix Xen (XenServer)

XenServer (previously named Citrix Hypervisor) was acquired by Citrix long time ago and been integrated into Citrix’s product portfolio. 

Although XenServer is a popular choice for VDI deployments (due to its capabilities and integration with Citrix products), it can work as a regular virtualization platform for hosting Virtual Machines and IaaS services.

Key Features

• Xen hypervisor technology
• XenCenter management console
• Live migration and high availability
• Integration with Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops
• Advanced storage and networking features
• Performance monitoring and optimization
• Enterprise-grade security features

Pros

– Proven technology in VDI Deployments: Mature platform with extensive deployment history as VDI workloads

– Citrix integration: Seamless integration with Citrix ecosystem (Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops)

– Enterprise features: Comprehensive HA, DR, and performance capabilities

Cons

– Licensing complexity: Evolving licensing models and restrictions

– Citrix dependency: Optimization primarily for Citrix workloads

– Market position: Uncertain long-term roadmap

Use Cases

Best suited for existing Citrix customers, organizations heavily invested in Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI), and enterprises requiring integration with Citrix application delivery solutions.

6. Azure Local (Formerly Azure Stack HCI)

Azure Local is an extension of Azure that runs on customer-owned infrastructure (on-prem), allowing local execution of both modern and traditional applications across distributed locations.

It incorporates Azure Stack HCI operating system and provides a unified management experience through a single control plane. By using Azure Arc, this solution can bridge Azure’s services to on-premises infrastructure.

Keep in mind that the local hardware servers must be procured from a list of Validated hardware vendors from this catalog.

Under the hood, this solution actually uses Hyper-V with S2D (Storage Spaces Direct) but with several extra steps to get connected to Azure etc.

Honestly this is a fairly new offering from Microsoft and not very mature for now as some people experienced several problems with this solution (see this here).  

However, Microsoft identified the need in the market for a solid hybrid virtualization solution to replace Vmware and I’m confident they will make their product much better.

Key Features

• Built on technologies like Hyper-V and Storage Spaces Direct
• Includes Azure services integration
• Supports both Windows and Linux VMs
• Offers AI and machine learning workload deployment
• Managed through Azure portal or on-premises tools

Use Cases 

Ideal for organizations adopting hybrid cloud strategies, Microsoft-centric environments, companies requiring cloud management with local control, and enterprises planning Azure cloud integration.

7. Honorable Mentions: XCP-ng and oVirt

Both XCP-ng and oVirt are open-source virtualization platforms based on Xen Project technology (the former) and KVM (the latter).

Developed as community-driven open-source solutions, they provide enterprise-grade virtualization capabilities without licensing restrictions (for example, the licensing cost of XCP/Xen Orchestra is only covering the packaging and support). 

These virtualization options can be considered as similar offerings with Proxmox and not direct Vmware replacements, however for smaller scale companies they can be good candidates for replacing Vmware as well.

In my opinion, if I were to select an open-source virtualization platform, I would choose Proxmox over XCP-ng or oVirt.

Proxmox is more feature-rich and mature and better suited to replace Vmware, but I don’t say that these two solutions are bad either. Its just Proxmox is more polished and stable in my opinion among the open-source options out there.