Broadcom's VMware acquisition changed the game—not just pricing, but the entire virtualization landscape. This deep-dive comparison reveals that Windows Server 2025 delivers 90% of VMware's capabilities at 30% of the cost—but the devil is in the remaining 10%.
The Enterprise Reality Check As we’ve established in previous posts, the post-Broadcom VMware landscape has fundamentally shifted the conversation around enterprise virtualization. No longer can organizations simply renew their vSphere licenses and move on—pricing has increased dramatically, licensing models have changed, and many customers are being pushed toward VMware Cloud Foundation whether they need all its components or not.
But beyond cost considerations lies a critical question: Does Windows Server Failover Clustering with Hyper-V actually deliver the enterprise features that keep VMware entrenched in so many data centers?
Your VMware exit hardware strategy determines both timeline and budget. Windows Server offers maximum flexibility with existing infrastructure, Azure Local requires validated nodes costing $200K-500K+, and VMware VCF 9.0 deprecates older hardware anyway. This analysis provides a framework for making hardware decisions that fit your organization's timeline and budget constraints.
(Note: AVS – Azure VMware Solution – is not covered in detail here since it’s essentially outsourcing VMware onto Azure’s hardware. That involves a different calculus: you avoid buying hardware entirely, but you pay cloud rental fees and must fit into Azure’s instance constraints. In this post, we focus on on-premises alternatives where you control the hardware.)
Hardware Considerations: Build Your Cloud on Your Terms Series Recap: In Part 1 of this series, we examined the total cost of ownership (TCO) implications of different post-VMware paths, comparing capital expenditure vs.
Virtualization licensing just got complicated. With VMware's Broadcom acquisition driving 3x cost increases and Microsoft introducing new subscription models, IT leaders need a clear roadmap. This blog provides the analysis and insights you need to make informed decisions that align with your budget and strategy.
Welcome to Part 2 of our “Beyond the Cloud: The Case for On-Premises Virtualization” series. In our introductory post, we explored why organizations are reconsidering their virtualization strategies post-VMware acquisition. In Part 1, we conducted a detailed five-year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis comparing Windows Hyper-V, Azure VMware Solution (AVS), and Azure Local, revealing how different cost structures impact long-term budgets.
A key factor driving those cost differences was how each platform’s licensing model works.
Virtualization is a cornerstone of modern IT infrastructure, and while VMware vSphere has long been a leader, Microsoft's Windows Server Failover Clustering with Hyper-V offers a compelling alternative for organizations seeking cost-effective, high-performance virtualization.
Why Choose Windows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) with Hyper‑V Over VMware Virtualization is a cornerstone of modern IT infrastructure, and VMware vSphere has long been a leader in this space. However, Microsoft’s Windows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) with Hyper‑V offers a compelling alternative for organizations seeking a cost-effective, high-performance virtualization platform. In this post, targeted at IT professionals, we’ll explore why WSFC with Hyper‑V is a strong alternative to VMware – emphasizing the ability to leverage existing hardware (reducing new hardware costs), the performance benefits of Hyper‑V, available management tools, feature comparisons with VMware, and a look at licensing and cost differences.
