Tool Comparison Matrix¶

Side-by-side comparison of all migration tools covered in this repository.

Primary Tool Comparison¶

Aspect	Veeam B&R	HYCU	Commvault	Carbonite Migrate
Source: Nutanix AHV	✅	✅	Assumed supported for planning; validate release	✅
Source: Nutanix ESXi	✅	✅	Assumed supported for planning; validate release	✅
Deployment	Windows Server	Linux appliance on cluster	Control plane plus media or worker components	Agent on each VM
Agent on source VMs	❌ (agentless)	❌ (agentless)	Varies by workflow	✅ Required
Separate backup storage	❌ Not needed	✅ Required	✅ Usually required	❌ Not needed
Live or continuous replication	✅ Yes	❌ Backup-based	❌ Restore-based in this doc model	✅ Yes
Built-in re-IP	✅ Yes	❌ Script required	❌ Script or manual post-restore	❌ DNS/LB update at cutover
Platform overhead or complexity	Medium	Low	Medium-high	Low
License cost	Paid	Paid	Paid	Paid
Concurrency (est.)	10–20 VMs	5–10 VMs	Depends on media and storage design	10–20 VMs
Management UI	Desktop + Web	Web (HTTPS)	Command Center + admin consoles	Carbonite console

Tool	Choose When
Veeam B&R	Large VM counts (> 100), existing Veeam license, ESXi source, need built-in re-IP
HYCU	AHV source, no existing tool license, team prefers simple web UI, backup compliance also needed
Commvault	Existing Commvault estate, centralized governance and policy control matter, restore-based Hop 1 is acceptable
Carbonite	Hypervisor-independent requirement, very old AHV versions, OS-level replication preferred, deploy-first pattern
Deploy-First	OS refresh needed, stateless workloads, file server data migration only

Staging Option	Hardware Cost	Complexity	Suitable For
Option A — Standalone Hyper-V	Extra server required	Medium	Dedicated migration pipeline, isolated from production
Option B — Azure Local as HV	Uses existing AZL cluster	Low	Smaller migrations, no spare hardware available

After completing the PoC, update this table with the decided production configuration: