VMware to; Proxmox vs HPE VM Essentials vs Hyper-V

VMware alternatives: Proxmox VE vs HPE VM Essentials vs Hyper-V

This is a pragmatic, high-level comparison of three platforms that are frequently considered when organisations want to reduce VMware exposure. It is not intended as a detailed design guide, and the pricing section is indicative only.

Proxmox VE (KVM + LXC)

A mature, popular open-source virtualisation platform: KVM for VMs and LXC for containers. It has a strong web UI, clustering, HA, Ceph integration, snapshots, and a large community. It is commonly adopted as a “move off VMware” option.

Pros

• Strong feature set for the cost (HA, live migration, snapshots, and a solid backup tooling ecosystem).
• Flexible storage options (ZFS, Ceph, iSCSI, NFS, etc.).
• Broad hardware compatibility and plenty of real-world operational knowledge in the community.
• Subscription support is available, and there is a healthy third-party ecosystem.

Cons

• Vendor support is via subscription tiers.
• Some VMware-to-Proxmox migrations need extra planning and validation (drivers, guest tooling differences, operational processes).

HPE VM Essentials (Morpheus)

HPE’s VMware-alternative offering combining KVM-based virtualisation with a Morpheus-style management and automation layer. It is positioned for organisations that prefer a more traditional enterprise vendor route with unified workload management and lifecycle operations.

Pros

• Vendor-backed approach, aligned to organisations that want support, roadmaps, and clear accountability.
• Emphasis on centralised management and automation (particularly relevant in mixed and hybrid environments).
• Approached as an operations platform, not just a hypervisor.

Cons

• Newer offering relative to Proxmox and Hyper-V; smaller community footprint and fewer long-lived “field patterns”.
• Pricing and packaging can be less transparent than community-driven platforms.
• Practical fit depends on how much value you place on the Morpheus management layer versus “just virtualisation”.

Microsoft Hyper-V (Windows Server Datacenter)

Microsoft’s hypervisor, typically consumed via Windows Server Datacenter licensing for virtualisation-heavy hosts. It is often a good fit when you are already a Windows-centric estate and want tight integration with Microsoft management and security tooling.

Pros

• Strong fit for Microsoft-centric environments (AD, Windows Server, System Center, Azure Arc, etc.).
• With Datacenter licensing, you get unlimited Windows Server VM rights on properly licensed hosts (often the economic driver).
• Mature platform with a long enterprise history.

Cons

• The economics depend heavily on whether your guests are Windows Server, and how you license physical cores.
• Linux support is fine, but the platform is generally most compelling in Windows-first estates.
• Feature and UX preferences vary; some teams find it less “turnkey” than VMware for certain workflows.

Approximate pricing (very rough)

Scenario: 3 nodes × 2 sockets each (6 sockets total), 30 cores per node, ~30 guests total.

Key caveats:

• Proxmox and HPE VM Essentials are often priced per socket per year (subscription/support), but packaging varies by vendor and reseller.
• Hyper-V is included with Windows Server, but in practice you price Windows Server Datacenter (licensed per physical core, with a minimum of 16 cores per server) to obtain unlimited Windows Server guest rights.
• Exact GBP varies by reseller discounts, support tier, currency rates, and whether you add Software Assurance / subscription benefits.

Pricing table (GBP, indicative)

Summary

If you want a mature, full-featured open-source virtualisation platform with optional paid support, Proxmox VE is hard to beat on value, particularly for smaller to mid-sized clusters.

Hyper-V can be a strong choice in Windows-heavy environments, especially where Windows Server guest licensing is central to the overall commercial model. However, Datacenter licensing is core-based and can be a significant up-front cost.

HPE VM Essentials (Morpheus) is most interesting for organisations that specifically want a vendor-led solution and place high value on the management and automation layer, rather than only the underlying hypervisor.

GEN, Provide comprehensive technical support for all three solutions with anything from 4 hour to 30 minute 24/7 response.