XCP-ng is a Type-1 hypervisor built on the Xen Hypervisor. Its own documentation describes it as a high performance enterprise level virtualization platform with a rich ecosystem, and as the modern successor to XCP, which was originally created as an open source version of Citrix XenServer back in 2010. It is a community-driven open source project backed by Vates, a French company that also develops the management layer. For a mid-market VMware estate the practical summary is: a mature Xen-based hypervisor with a commercial company behind it, which is a different proposition from a purely community project with no vendor to call.

Is XCP-ng actually free?

The hypervisor is. Vates describes XCP-ng on its own site as a Type-1 Xen-based hypervisor with, in their words, no limits and no license. You can download the ISO and install a host without paying anyone. But a hypervisor is not a platform. The thing you will actually operate day to day is Xen Orchestra — the web console used to manage, back up and monitor your VMs — and that is where the commercial model lives. Treating the free hypervisor as the total cost of the platform is the single most common mistake in an XCP-ng business case.

What is Xen Orchestra and do I have to pay for it?

Xen Orchestra is the central administration console and backup solution for XCP-ng, and its own documentation calls it the default choice for managing the platform. Vates now packages it together with the hypervisor rather than selling it separately: the bundle is called Vates VMS, the Virtualization Management Stack, which combines XCP-ng, Xen Orchestra and additional components including XOSTOR, XO Proxy and XO Lite. There is also a commercial tier described as Vates VMS FLAGSHIP — a full turnkey stack with updates, support and an SLA. What you are buying, in effect, is the managed platform and the support relationship, not the right to run the hypervisor.

How does XCP-ng pricing compare to VMware after Broadcom?

The metric is the meaningful difference and it is worth understanding before any figure. Vates states, verbatim, that 'We charge per host, not per core or CPU.' Broadcom's post-acquisition subscription model applies a 16-core-per-CPU minimum per socket, which means an estate running 8-core or 10-core processors pays for 16 per socket regardless of use. Those are structurally different bills: one scales with how many physical servers you run, the other with how many cores you are deemed to have. An older, denser-licensed estate can therefore see a very different answer than a newer one. We are deliberately not quoting XCP-ng figures here, because Vates does not publish them on its main product page and the numbers circulating in forums are not a source we will put in front of a client. Ask Vates or a partner for a current quote against your host count.

Is XCP-ng a serious option for a regulated mid-market shop?

It can be, and the honest qualifiers are about ecosystem rather than the hypervisor. The technology is mature and there is a commercial entity behind it with a support offering. The questions that actually decide it are the ones around the edges: whether your backup vendor supports it, whether your security and monitoring tooling has agents for it, whether your line-of-business application vendors will support their software running on it, and whether your team has Xen experience or is starting from zero. Those are the same questions that decide any VMware exit — they are just more likely to produce a no on a platform with a smaller install base than Hyper-V or Nutanix.

Field notes · 4 min read · August 18, 2026

XCP-ng as a VMware exit: free hypervisor, priced platform

XCP-ng is a Type-1 Xen-based hypervisor that Vates describes as having no limits and no license. The commercial model sits in the management and backup layer around it, and Vates charges for that, in their words, 'per host, not per core or CPU' — a different metric from Broadcom's 16-core-per-CPU socket minimum.

Most VMware-exit shortlists in the mid-market contain Hyper-V, Nutanix, and maybe Proxmox. XCP-ng is usually missing from them, and it should not be — it is a mature Xen-based platform with a commercial company behind it.

It also comes with the most misunderstood commercial model of the group, because the hypervisor genuinely is free and the platform genuinely is not.

The 60-second version: XCP-ng is a Type-1 Xen hypervisor, open source, backed by Vates, and described by them as having "no limits, no license." The money is in Xen Orchestra, the management and backup console, now bundled as Vates VMS. Vates charges for it "per host, not per core or CPU" — which is a structurally different bill from Broadcom's 16-core-per-CPU socket minimum.

What it is, briefly

From XCP-ng's own documentation: a "high performance enterprise level virtualization platform with a rich ecosystem", and "the modern successor to XCP, initially created as an Open Source version of Citrix XenServer back in 2010." It runs on the Xen Hypervisor and is "a community-driven Open Source project, backed by Vates."

That last clause is the one that matters for a mid-market buyer. An open-source hypervisor with a company behind it is a different risk profile from one without. You can buy a support relationship.

The free-hypervisor trap

On Vates' own site, XCP-ng is described as a "Type-1 Xen-based hypervisor: no limits, no license." That is true, and it is where most business cases stop.

But the thing you operate is not the hypervisor. It is Xen Orchestra — described by Vates as the "web console to manage, back up and monitor your VMs", and by XCP-ng's own docs as "the default choice" for administration and as "a complete and agentless backup solution."

Vates now packages the two together as Vates VMS (Virtualization Management Stack), which also includes XOSTOR, XO Proxy and XO Lite, with a commercial tier called Vates VMS FLAGSHIP — "full turnkey stack with updates, support and SLA."

So the honest framing is: you are not buying a license to run the hypervisor. You are buying the management and backup platform, and the support relationship. That is a real cost and it belongs in the business case from day one — a comparison that puts VMware's license bill against XCP-ng's zero is not a comparison.

The metric, not the rate

Vates states it plainly: "We charge per host, not per core or CPU, making it a much more affordable solution."

Compare the shape of that to Broadcom's, where subscription pricing carries a 16-core-per-CPU minimum per socket. As covered in VMware after Broadcom, that minimum is usually what turns a bad renewal into a shocking one: an estate on 8-core or 10-core CPUs pays for 16 per socket regardless of use, which is why an older, smaller estate can absorb a larger multiple than a big modern one.

A per-host metric inverts that. Density stops being a penalty and becomes an advantage: fewer, larger hosts is the cheaper shape, which is the opposite of the incentive Broadcom's model creates.

⚠️ We are not quoting XCP-ng prices here, deliberately. Vates does not publish figures on its main product page — it points to a separate pricing page — and the numbers circulating on community forums are not a source we will put in front of a client. Get a current quote against your actual host count. Anyone giving you an XCP-ng price from memory is quoting a model that changed in the last couple of years.

The questions that actually decide it

The hypervisor is not the risk. The ecosystem around it is, and these are the same questions that decide any VMware exit — they are just more likely to return a "no" on a platform with a smaller install base:

Backup. Xen Orchestra is a capable agentless backup solution in its own right — but does your existing backup vendor support XCP-ng, and do you want to consolidate on XO or keep what you have?
Security and monitoring. Do your EDR, SIEM and monitoring tools have supported agents for the guests and, where relevant, the hosts?
Application vendor support. Will your line-of-business vendors support their software on Xen? This is the question that most often ends the conversation, and it is worth asking before the technical evaluation, not after.
Team experience. Hyper-V is familiar to any Windows team. Xen is not. Factor the learning curve honestly, or budget for the support tier that covers it.

Where it sits against the alternatives

Our exit-options guide walks Hyper-V, Azure Local, Nutanix, Scale Computing, Proxmox VE and Azure IaaS. XCP-ng belongs on that list, and it tends to win in the same places Proxmox does — Linux-comfortable teams, a preference for open source, and a strong objection to per-core licensing — with the added factor of a commercial vendor and a purchasable SLA.

Where it tends to lose is the Microsoft-stack shop that already owns Windows Server Datacenter, because Hyper-V is already paid for and already familiar. That case is not close.

We do not resell any of these platforms. If you want the host-count modelling and the destination decision run as a bounded piece of work, that is our VMware exit and server modernization engagement — scope it with us.

Questions we get asked

What is XCP-ng?: XCP-ng is a Type-1 hypervisor built on the Xen Hypervisor. Its own documentation describes it as a high performance enterprise level virtualization platform with a rich ecosystem, and as the modern successor to XCP, which was originally created as an open source version of Citrix XenServer back in 2010. It is a community-driven open source project backed by Vates, a French company that also develops the management layer. For a mid-market VMware estate the practical summary is: a mature Xen-based hypervisor with a commercial company behind it, which is a different proposition from a purely community project with no vendor to call.
Is XCP-ng actually free?: The hypervisor is. Vates describes XCP-ng on its own site as a Type-1 Xen-based hypervisor with, in their words, no limits and no license. You can download the ISO and install a host without paying anyone. But a hypervisor is not a platform. The thing you will actually operate day to day is Xen Orchestra — the web console used to manage, back up and monitor your VMs — and that is where the commercial model lives. Treating the free hypervisor as the total cost of the platform is the single most common mistake in an XCP-ng business case.
What is Xen Orchestra and do I have to pay for it?: Xen Orchestra is the central administration console and backup solution for XCP-ng, and its own documentation calls it the default choice for managing the platform. Vates now packages it together with the hypervisor rather than selling it separately: the bundle is called Vates VMS, the Virtualization Management Stack, which combines XCP-ng, Xen Orchestra and additional components including XOSTOR, XO Proxy and XO Lite. There is also a commercial tier described as Vates VMS FLAGSHIP — a full turnkey stack with updates, support and an SLA. What you are buying, in effect, is the managed platform and the support relationship, not the right to run the hypervisor.
How does XCP-ng pricing compare to VMware after Broadcom?: The metric is the meaningful difference and it is worth understanding before any figure. Vates states, verbatim, that 'We charge per host, not per core or CPU.' Broadcom's post-acquisition subscription model applies a 16-core-per-CPU minimum per socket, which means an estate running 8-core or 10-core processors pays for 16 per socket regardless of use. Those are structurally different bills: one scales with how many physical servers you run, the other with how many cores you are deemed to have. An older, denser-licensed estate can therefore see a very different answer than a newer one. We are deliberately not quoting XCP-ng figures here, because Vates does not publish them on its main product page and the numbers circulating in forums are not a source we will put in front of a client. Ask Vates or a partner for a current quote against your host count.
Is XCP-ng a serious option for a regulated mid-market shop?: It can be, and the honest qualifiers are about ecosystem rather than the hypervisor. The technology is mature and there is a commercial entity behind it with a support offering. The questions that actually decide it are the ones around the edges: whether your backup vendor supports it, whether your security and monitoring tooling has agents for it, whether your line-of-business application vendors will support their software running on it, and whether your team has Xen experience or is starting from zero. Those are the same questions that decide any VMware exit — they are just more likely to produce a no on a platform with a smaller install base than Hyper-V or Nutanix.

Related service

VMware Exit & Server Modernization

Written by the team at Pro IT NW · Senior-led Microsoft project consultancy · Seattle / USA-wide.

Share on LinkedIn Follow Pro IT NW