Is it Time to Divorce VMWare?

You’re not wrong about VMware. The Broadcom acquisition has turned a lot of sane VMware estates into financial dumpster fires, prompting many customers to actively explore alternatives. Broadcom is primarily focused on serving the largest enterprise customers, effectively signaling that small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) are no longer a target demographic.

The question for many is not if they will divorce, but when, and who gets the dog?

Perpetual licenses are gone, bundles are forced, and plenty of orgs are reporting 150–500%+ cost increases (sometimes 8–15x at renewal) as they get shoved into subscription bundles they don’t actually need, It’s rational to look for the exit.

But if VMware is the “pinnacle,” divorcing it means you need to be very clear about what you actually need and which alternative lines up with your constraints, especially for SMBs. While many customers want to leave, migration from a deeply integrated VMWare environment can be an arduous and potentially multi-year process.

Let’s walk through some of the contenders in the space in a way that’s actually useful for decision-making.

Before vendor shopping, you should be able to answer:

• Do you just need basic, reliable virtualization for Windows/Linux workloads?
• Do you want an HCI stack with tight integration (storage + compute + virtualization)?
• Are you moving toward a Kubernetes-first, app-platform model?
• How much Linux competency do you really have in-house?
• Do you need enterprise support, or are you willing to lean on community + limited paid support?

If you can’t answer those, any “comparison” is just vendor bingo.

If you’re an SMB, heavily Windows-centric, and you want out of VMware without going exotic, Hyper-V should be your baseline comparison.

What it is

• Type-1 hypervisor built into Windows Server and also available on Windows 10/11 Pro/Enterprise.
• Supports clustering, live migration, replication, guest clustering, etc., and works with a range of storage backends (SAN, NAS, iSCSI, SMB, HCI).

Pros for SMB

• Licensing: Hyper-V itself is effectively “free” once you’ve paid for Windows Server; no separate hypervisor SKU.
• Skill alignment: If your admins are already knee-deep in AD/Windows, the learning curve is manageable.
• Ecosystem: Strong tooling with Windows Admin Center, System Center, backup products, etc.
• Good enough features: Live migration, HA, DR options, PowerShell automation—more than enough for most SMB use cases.

Cons / gotchas

• Microsoft-first bias. Linux is supported, but if you’re majority Linux, Hyper-V is awkward.
• Feature richness and UX aren’t as polished as vSphere in some areas.
• If you want full HCI with Hyper-V, you’re really talking Azure Stack HCI, which is its own licensing and hardware story.

When Hyper-V makes sense

• You’re mostly Windows, already licensed for Windows Server.
• You want out of VMware without re-architecting the universe.
• You need something boring, predictable, and supportable.

If you want to get out from under hyperscaler-style licensing and you’re comfortable with Linux, Proxmox VE is absolutely worth a serious look.

What it is

• Open-source virtualization platform that integrates KVM for VMs and LXC for containers, plus software-defined storage (ZFS, Ceph, etc.) and SDN features in a single web UI.

Pros for SMB

• Cost: Core platform is free; paid subscriptions are for enterprise repos/support, not for the hypervisor itself.
• Feature set: Clustering, HA, live migration, integrated backup/restore, replication, firewall—out of the box.
• Flexibility: Supports both VMs and lightweight containers; good fit for mixed workloads and labs.
• No vendor lock to the same extent as VMware/Broadcom.

Cons / gotchas

• You must be comfortable with Linux. If your team isn’t, this will hurt.
• Support model is subscription + community; not the same as a Tier-1 vendor with a global support machine.
• Ecosystem (3rd-party integrations, management suites, etc.) is smaller than VMware/Microsoft.

When Proxmox makes sense

• Cost pressure is real and you want to kill hypervisor licensing entirely.
• You’ve got at least some Linux competence.
• You want decent HA + clustering without paying enterprise rates.
• You’re okay with a bit more DIY in exchange for control.

Nutanix is not “a hypervisor instead of VMware” as much as it is “an HCI (Hyperconverged Infrastructure) platform that includes a hypervisor (AHV).”

What it is

• A Hyperconverged platform is a software-defined IT framework that combines computer, storage, networking, and management into a single, unified platform, usually running on standard servers, to simplify data center, reduce complexity, and provide cloud-like scalability. It replaces traditional siloed hardware with a software layer that pools resources, making IT more agile and cost-effective, ideal for virtualized environments.

Pros for SMB

• Integrated stack: Virtualization, storage, and management in one platform. Less architectural sprawl, fewer moving parts.
• AHV licensing: AHV is generally included with the Nutanix platform—no separate “hypervisor tax” like VMware.
• Strong management UX with Prism, decent automation and DR features.
• Nutanix has made AHV a first-class citizen; not a second-class add-on like “you could also run KVM if you want.”

Cons / gotchas

• You’re buying into Nutanix HCI, not just a hypervisor. That’s a capex/opex and hardware story.
• For very small SMB environments, Nutanix can simply be overkill.
• Still a vendor platform; you’re swapping one premium ecosystem (VMware) for another, albeit with a more palatable licensing model today.

When Nutanix makes sense

• You’re okay with an HCI strategy and want to simplify infra.
• You’ve got enough scale that the Nutanix TCO can compete vs VMware + SAN + whatever else you have.
• You want VMware-class features with more predictable cost and strong support.

Let’s be blunt: OpenShift is not an SMB virtualization replacement. It’s a Kubernetes application platform that happens to be able to run VMs alongside containers via OpenShift Virtualization (KubeVirt).

What it is

• Red Hat OpenShift is a Kubernetes platform.
• OpenShift Virtualization (KubeVirt) is an add-on/operator that lets you run VMs as Kubernetes workloads in the same cluster.

Pros

• Strong if you’re modernizing: container + VM workloads together, same control plane, same pipelines.
• KVM under the hood, with Red Hat’s ecosystem behind it.
• Good for orgs deliberately migrating from “VM-first” to “platform-first” architectures.

Cons / gotchas for SMB

• Complexity. You’re bringing in cluster operators, CRDs, Kubernetes networking, storage classes, etc.
• Licensing + infra overhead for OpenShift itself—this is not a lightweight hypervisor replacement.
• Overkill if you “just want a few hosts to run some VMs.”

When OpenShift Virtualization makes sense

• You already have a Kubernetes/OpenShift strategy or you’re mandated to build one.
• You want a path to refactor workloads over time while keeping some VMs in the same control plane.
• You have the skills (or partners) to run a Kubernetes platform safely.

For a typical SMB leaving VMware and just needing to run infra workloads, this is usually not the first stop.

So… who replaces VMware in SMB land?

If we strip away vendor gloss and focus on SMB reality, the practical landscape looks like this:

Option	Best fit SMB profile	Cost model	Skills needed	Good VMware alternative when…
Hyper-V	Windows-heavy shops that want boring, dependable virtualization	Included with Windows Server	Windows / AD / PowerShell	You want low drama, minimal change
Proxmox VE	Cost-sensitive SMBs with some Linux competency, willing to DIY a bit	Free core + optional support subscriptions	Linux, storage, networking	You want to kill hypervisor licensing and keep control
Nutanix AHV	SMB/upper-SMB with multiple hosts, wants HCI, ok with capex and vendor buy-in	Nutanix platform (AHV included)	Enterprise virtualization/HCI	You want a polished platform, but not VMware prices
OpenShift Virtualization	orgs going Kubernetes-first, app platform focus, mixed modern workloads	OpenShift subscription + infra	Kubernetes + Linux	You’re modernizing apps, not just hosting VMs

Tough-love conclusion

You’re right that it’s time to question VMware for SMB. Broadcom’s pricing and licensing changes are a flashing red light telling you not to be dependent on a single hypervisor vendor forever.

But “divorcing VMware” is not the goal.
The goal is:

• Right-sizing your virtualization stack for your scale and skills
• Reducing licensing exposure to a single vendor
• Avoiding jumping from one expensive, overbuilt platform to another

If you’re a typical SMB:

• Start by modeling Hyper-V vs Proxmox as your baseline choices.
• Consider Nutanix AHV if you’re ready for an HCI move and have enough scale.
• Treat OpenShift Virtualization as part of an app/platform modernization strategy, not a simple VMware swap.

If you want, I can help you go one step further and:

• Define selection criteria (features, SLAs, staffing, licensing, migration effort)
• Sketch a migration strategy off VMware (phased, by workload type)
• Propose a reference architecture for SMB using one or two of these platforms

But first, you need to pick: are you trying to be a platform shop, an HCI shop, or a simple, cost-effective virtualization shop? Everything else flows from that.