Parallels Virtuozzo VS Microsoft Hyper-V. Whose virtualization is more honest?

I read quite a lot about virtualization on Habré and walked through the sites of providers, but unfortunately nowhere did I find an obvious head-to-head comparison of the two most popular systems on the Russian market . Therefore, I decided to write it myself.

So, let's compare two server virtualization systems: a new, relatively young Hyper-V and for a long time already used by many hosters - Virtuozzo.

I will compare for quite clear orchestra in this form:
Parameter:
Virtuozzo (V)
Hyper-V (H)

1. Type of virtualization
V: Operating system level virtualization. This method allows you to run instances of the main OS in independent protected areas - containers.
H: Full server hardware virtualization . Virtualization is based on the hypervisor, which is separated from the main OS. It acts as an intermediary between the physical devices of the server and their representation in the guest operating system.
')
2. Use of server resources.
V: Virtuozzo technology is very efficient in terms of server resource utilization and performance loss for virtualization. It allows you to quickly change the amount of resources used by the physical server, because for each machine it is just another OS.
H: Hyper-V virtual server operates with a processor, memory, disk, network devices as if it were a normal physical server.

3. The possibility of overselling.
V: Allows you to implement a large enough overselling , for which hosters love it, since the basic OS tools run on the server in a single copy, to ensure complete independence of the guest OS and the guaranteed minimum of resources is almost impossible.
H: Each virtual server is assigned a guaranteed minimum of resources. The impact of "neighboring" virtual servers is minimized, which practically negates the possibility of overselling . It is beneficial for the client, because he gets a clearly marked minimum performance and the possibility of its growth with free resources. But the hoster is not always happy with this scheme. he has to honestly share a physical server between clients.

4. Live migration
V: Supported in full, which ensures uninterrupted operation of the VPS when transferring between physical servers
H: With the release of Windows Server 200 R2, it fully supports the Live Migration mechanism.

5. Supported OS
V: As a baseline, both Windows and Linux can act. As a guest various Linux distributions; Windows
H: Base OS Windows Server 2008 hypervisor. Guest: Windows NT, 2000, 2003, 2008, XP, Vista, Linux (Red Hat and SUSE) and some other versions of Linux, FreeBSD.

6. Availability of control panel
V: Integrates with Parallels branded graphic control panels.
H: Branded control panel from Microsoft System Center Virtual Machine Manager (SC VMM). There are special management consoles as a physical server (Hyper-V Manager) and solutions from third-party developers ( DotNetPanel , Parking Cube )

Summarizing everything written above, I can express my IMHO that Hyper-V currently provides more honest virtualization , which is close in terms of parameters to physical servers, and their prices are already quite close to the prices for Virtuozzo.

ps On the vskidku several hosters on both sides.
Virtuozzo: Masterhost , Rusonix , NThost
Hyper-V: Parking.ru , Infobox , 1gb.ru

pps I've heard that Parallels is preparing their "honest" hypervisor, as the answer is Hyper-V. So we will wait for its appearance and, accordingly, offers from hosters with honest virtualization.

UPD Transfer from Hosting to Virtualization I think it would be more appropriate here.