How organizations can tackle Trade-offs needed by clients looking for VMware alternatives

• There is no single alternative to VMware. Trade-offs must be made when you migrate.
• Cloud service providers like AWS, Azure, IBM Cloud, Google Cloud, Oracle Cloud Infrastructure and On-premises options like Nutanix and Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization are VMware alternatives that organizations are moving to.

Relocation/moving homes is one of the most stressful processes we face in our personal lives. The move itself is the easy part (comparatively), but the decisions surrounding that are the toughest to make. Should I move? Can I live with the pain of burgeoning cost of maintaining the house? Which area should I move to? What type of house should I move to? Who from my family will influence the decision? Will I be able to afford it? Will the move make it better for my family’s future?

In our professional lives, there is a strong parallel, especially in the context of VMware. The virtualization landscape shifted dramatically when Broadcom acquired VMware for $61 billion in November 2023. They caused a market inflection with bundling solutions, increasing prices and shifting to a subscription model.

• Skyrocketing Costs: Broadcom bundled solutions with a focus on VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF). License costs for organizations that were just using vSphere have surged by large factor*. With a minimum purchase of 72 cores and renewals shifting to core-based subscriptions and discounts requiring 3- or 5-year commitments, organizations are locking in much higher expenses.
• Reduced Partner Access: The new Pinnacle partner program excluded many former VMware Cloud Partners, limiting MSP support and resources.
• Complex Transitions: Moving from perpetual licenses to subscriptions, coupled with diverse client needs (public cloud, on-premises, hybrid), creates slow, risky migrations that can take months and disrupt operations.

For organizations, these changes mean higher costs, reduced flexibility, and operational hurdles.

Complexities faced by MSPs are higher

MSPs face pressure to deliver affordable, reliable solutions that align with clients’ strategic goals, while maintaining their own profitability. Here are the key pain points:

• Reduce risks for clients: Clients with complex workloads face significant downtime risks during migrations, threatening business continuity and MSP reputations.
• Support future plans of clients: Clients want tailored destinations—public cloud, on-premises, or hybrid multi-cloud—to match their compute, performance, and budget needs. MSPs must navigate diverse preferences, often for the same client’s varied workloads.
• Streamline execution: Traditional migration tools are slow, requiring months for assessment, planning, and deployment, straining MSP resources.
• Migrate from VMware with Limited Resources: Smaller MSPs lack the staff or budget for large-scale migrations, especially under tight timelines.
• Maintain profitability: With VMware costs soaring, MSPs struggle to maintain margins while keeping client pricing competitive. Broadcom’s focus on large enterprises leaves smaller MSPs with less support and higher expenses.

These challenges highlight why MSPs need a fast, flexible, and reliable VMware alternative to stay competitive and meet client expectations.

Reimagine VMware migrations with DartIQ VeeMigrate

View the market changes as an opportunity to help get your clients future-ready with a hyper-automated end-to-end migration solution from DartIQ. By adopting VMware alternatives, MSPs can cut costs, streamline operations and support future modernization plans, today.

Sample Trade-Off Scenarios and How DartIQ Helps

Migrating from VMware isn’t just about cost—it’s about navigating complex trade-offs that can stall projects. Below are a two sample scenarios clients face and how we can help provide key trade-off decisions as part of the solution itself, without budget-busting consultant fees.

Sample scenario 1 – Storage: Balancing Performance vs. Cost

Scenario: A healthcare provider with 300 VMs on VMware vSphere 7.0 and vSAN serves a patient records system (EHR) requiring 50,000 IOPS and 99.99% uptime. Migrating to a new environment (e.g., Azure, AWS, IBM Cloud, Nutanix) is driven by Broadcom’s cost hike and a need for Cloud scale and agility. VMware’s vSAN offers advanced features like deduplication, encryption, and high IOPS, but replicating these in cloud or alternative hypervisors introduces performance and cost trade-offs.

Challenge: Cloud storage (e.g., Azure NetApp Files, AWS FSx) or Nutanix AOS may not match vSAN’s low-latency integration with vSphere, risking EHR performance. Conversely, maintaining vSAN-like performance (e.g., via Azure AVS) retains VMware licensing costs, negating savings. For example, Azure Premium SSDs offer high IOPS but cost 30%–50% more than standard tiers

Trade-Offs:

• Performance (Pro): Using Azure AVS or Nutanix AOS preserves vSAN-like IOPS (50,000+), ensuring EHR reliability.
• Cost (Con): AVS retains VMware licensing ($200K+/year for 300 VMs); high-performance cloud storage (e.g., AWS FSx) increases TCO by 20%–40% vs. standard tiers.
• Complexity (Con): Cloud-native storage (e.g., IBM Cloud Block Storage) requires reconfiguration of VMFS-to-block mappings, adding 4–6 weeks to migration.

Solutions and Recommendations:

• Azure: Deploy Azure NetApp Files (ANF) for 460,000 IOPS and vSAN-like performance, paired with Azure Policy for HIPAA compliance. Use Azure Storage Gateway to abstract VMFS, easing transitions. Trade-Off: ANF costs 30% more than Standard SSDs but saves 20% vs. AVS long-term.
• AWS: Use Amazon FSx for NetApp ONTAP for high IOPS and encryption, with AWS Storage Gateway for VMFS compatibility. Trade-Off: FSx is 25% pricier than EBS but avoids VMC licensing ($150K+/year).
• Nutanix: Leverage Nutanix AOS with AHV hypervisor, replicating vSAN’s deduplication and encryption. Use Nutanix Move to migrate VMs. Trade-Off: AOS matches performance but requires 2–3 weeks for AHV training.
• IBM Cloud: Adopt IBM Cloud Block Storage for VPC with encryption, paired with IBM Cloud Pak for Datafor EHR analytics. Trade-Off: Lower IOPS (10,000–100,000) than vSAN but 40% cheaper than AVS.
• GCP: Persistent Disk (pd-extreme) supports up to 100,000 IOPS, suitable for EHR but below Azure ANF’s 460,000 IOPS. GCVE retains vSAN but incurs licensing costs (~$200K/year for 300 VMs – varies).
• OCI: Block Volumes offer up to 75,000 IOPS, adequate for EHR but lower than vSAN’s peak. Cost is roughly 25% higher than standard tiers, but OCVS avoids licensing savings. File Storage abstracts VMFS, reducing complexity.

Recommendation: Conduct a storage assessment with VeeMigrate’s AI to compare IOPS, latency, and TCO across Azure ANF, AWS FSx, Nutanix AOS, and IBM Block Storage. DartIQ AI Engine automates vSAN-to-cloud storage mapping, reducing reconfiguration time.

Sample Scenario 2 – Networking: Preserving Continuity vs. Simplifying Reconfiguration

Scenario: A manufacturing firm with 400 VMs on VMware NSX-T relies on distributed firewall (DFW) rules and port groups for low-latency ERP connectivity. Broadcom’s NSX-T licensing hike prompts migration to AWS, Azure, IBM Cloud or Nutanix. On-premises networks tightly couple with VMware’s Distributed Virtual Switch (DVS), complicating cloud VPC or hypervisor network reconfiguration.

Challenge: Recreating NSX-T’s 200 DFW rules and DVS port groups in cloud VPCs (e.g., AWS Transit Gateway, Azure Virtual Network) risks misconfigurations or latency spikes. Retaining NSX-T via AWS VMC or Azure AVS ensures continuity but incurs high licensing costs. Redesigning for cloud-native networking saves 30%–50% but requires 6–8 weeks of topology mapping.

Trade-Offs:

• Continuity (Pro): VMC/AVS preserves NSX-T DFW and DVS, maintaining low latency.
• Cost (Con): AVS/VMC NSX-T licensing adds $100K–$200K/year vs. cloud-native VPCs.
• Time (Con): Cloud-native redesign (e.g., AWS VPC) requires 6–8 weeks for IP scheme and policy migration, risking delays.

Solutions and Recommendations:

• Azure: Deploy Azure Virtual Network (VNet) with Azure Firewall to replicate NSX-T DFW rules, using Azure ExpressRoute for <5ms latency. Leverage Azure Virtual Network Manager to simplify topology. Trade-Off: VNet setup takes 4–6 weeks but saves approximately 40% vs. AVS NSX-T.
• AWS: Use AWS Transit Gateway and Network Firewall for DFW equivalence, paired with AWS Direct Connect for low latency. Deploy AWS Virtual Private Gateway for port group abstraction. Trade-Off: Transit Gateway is 30% cheaper than VMC NSX-T but needs 5–7 weeks for rule mapping.
• Nutanix: Implement Nutanix Flow for microsegmentation, replacing NSX-T DFW, with AHV networking for DVS-like functionality. Trade-Off: Flow matches security but requires staff retraining.
• IBM Cloud: Use IBM Cloud VPC with Security Groups and Direct Link for latency and policy replication. Trade-Off: Fewer DFW-like features than NSX-T but 35% lower cost.
• GCP: Cloud VPC with Cloud Armor replicates NSX-T DFW rules, and Cloud Interconnect ensures low latency. Setup time (4–6 weeks) aligns with Azure/AWS, but GCVE retains NSX-T costs ($100K–$200K/year).
• OCI: VCN with Security Lists and FastConnect matches NSX-T functionality and latency. Setup time (4–6 weeks) is comparable, but OCVS incurs licensing costs.

Recommendation: Use VeeMigrate’s AI to map NSX-T and DVS dependencies early. The DartIQ AI Engine maps NSX-T rules and DVS topology, automating majority of VNet/VPC configurations quickly.

Are you ready to start your VMware transformation?

We are re-imagining how migrations from VMware can be executed in an informed manner, with a hyper-automated end-to-end solution.

p.s: All costs talked about in the blog will vary depending on the client and their negotiated plan with the various Cloud and Solution providers.

Talk to us about how we can help you.

*Few companies saw a decrease or a modest increase in subscription costs at the time of their renewal.