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.
Introduction In our previous blog post, we explored why organizations are reconsidering their virtualization strategy post-VMware and highlighted the often-overlooked value of Windows Server Failover Clustering with Hyper-V. Now, in this first follow-up post of the "Beyond the Cloud: The Case for On-Premises Virtualization" series, we dive into the financial side of that decision. Specifically, we will compare the five-year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for three possible platforms to run a 100-Virtual Machine (VM) workload:
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.
From My Perspective as a Microsoft Azure Hybrid MVP – Two Decades in Microsoft Hybrid & HCI I write this blog as a longtime Microsoft advocate with two decades of hands-on experience—from early Hyper-V in 2008 to today’s Azure Local. This series aims to highlight the potential of Windows Server Failover Clustering (WSFC) as a viable alternative for organizations transitioning away from VMware, especially in light of Broadcom’s acquisition. While I value Azure’s Cloud and Hybrid offerings, I believe Microsoft’s current messaging overlooks WSFC’s capabilities in providing cost-effective, high-availability solutions.
