Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Swarm64 vs Windows Server Failover Clustering comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Swarm64
Ranking in High Availability Clustering
8th
Average Rating
0.0
Number of Reviews
0
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Windows Server Failover Clu...
Ranking in High Availability Clustering
1st
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of August 2025, in the High Availability Clustering category, the mindshare of Swarm64 is 1.9%, up from 1.7% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Windows Server Failover Clustering is 24.4%, down from 33.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
High Availability Clustering
 

Featured Reviews

Use Swarm64?
Share your opinion
SK
A scalable solution to create clusters, and auto-assign a master
The solution has some downsides related to the election mechanism, meaning that if the servers or the cluster services or cluster server elect one server, they will attribute to that server an object that is called a quorum. This quorum does the server or the service that has that quorum, it is taken as the master. So when you have, for example, something happens in your data centers like a power outage or an unexpected shutdown, and you can't start the master server what sometimes will happen, is since the shutdown was unexpected, the cluster didn't have time to do some post configurations before the extension of the shutdown of the servers, sometimes that quorum can't be removed from the crashed master and the cluster wants stuff. This is part of the architecture of this service, the Failover service. So sometimes we face this type of problem. In the past, we had a lot of power outages and when we started after, our server, we faced this problem. Meaning that the cluster won't stop because one of the servers, the master crashed, and they didn't want to start. So we need to access and do some line configurations so that we will force the cluster to elect a new master and ignore the crashed one.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which High Availability Clustering solutions are best for your needs.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
11%
Computer Software Company
10%
Government
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What is your experience regarding pricing and costs for Windows Server Failover Clustering?
There is no extra charge except a service fee for some professional work. I rate the product’s pricing a five out of ten, where one is cheap, and ten is expensive.
What needs improvement with Windows Server Failover Clustering?
The solution uses external storage, while third-party solutions don't use external storage. They're using a mirror to create a partition on each server and synchronize the data in the background. I...
What is your primary use case for Windows Server Failover Clustering?
We use the solution for warehouse purposes. We built an SQL server on the solution.
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Alliance Venture, Target Partners, Investinor
Karl-Franzens-Universit_t Graz, NAV CANADA, Magnachip, ólectricit_ de France, Cambridgeshire Constabulary, Bank Alfalah Ltd., Local Government Association of Queensland
Find out what your peers are saying about Microsoft, IBM, Veritas and others in High Availability Clustering. Updated: August 2025.
865,295 professionals have used our research since 2012.