By Kris Wiselka

Rethinking IT Infrastructure Under Broadcom’s Licensing Rules

!Rows of illuminated server racks inside a modern enterprise data centre, representing VMware infrastructure under strategic review.

Photo: Unsplash

TL;DR:

• Broadcom eliminated perpetual VMware licences in early 2024, replacing them with subscription-only agreements that have delivered 100% – 800% renewal cost increases for most enterprise customers (IDC, Aug 2024).
• 86% of organisations are actively reducing their VMware footprint as a direct result (CloudBolt, Jan 2026).
• CIOs have three credible strategic options: stay and optimise, gradually diversify onto alternative platforms, or pursue a full transition – each with different risk, cost, and timeline profiles.
• Gartner projects 35% of VMware workloads will migrate to alternatives by 2028 (The Register, Sep 2025), with migration demand peaking through 2026.
• The organisations recovering fastest are treating this as a forcing function for infrastructure modernisation – not just a licensing problem to solve at renewal time.

—

Executive Summary

For a platform-by-platform breakdown, see the Complete Enterprise Guide to VMware VSphere Alternatives.

Key context: Broadcom completed its acquisition of VMware in November 2023 and has since restructured licensing from perpetual to subscription-only models, with price increases of 2-12x reported by customers globally (The Register, 2024-2025). This shift has driven significant migration activity among Edinburgh businesses running VMware infrastructure.

, according to Gartner (2025).

This VMware licensing strategy CIO guide walks through the key decisions and trade-offs. Broadcom closed its acquisition of VMware in November 2023 and moved quickly. Within months, perpetual licences were eliminated entirely, the product catalogue was consolidated from approximately 168 product bundles to four commercial offerings, and subscription pricing was enforced across the board. IDC’s VP of Software Contracting Advisory documented renewal cost increases of 100% to 800% for enterprise customers by August 2024. These are not edge cases. They represent the central tendency across a large installed base. This Broadcom VMware licensing strategy reset has been the most disruptive commercial event in server virtualisation in more than a decade (Broadcom).

The scale of reported increases varies significantly by organisation. AT&T reported a 1,050% increase (The Register, 2024). European cloud providers under the CISPE umbrella reported increases of 800% to 1,500% and escalated formally to the European Commission (Network World, May 2025). At the same time, CloudBolt’s February 2026 survey of enterprise buyers found the most common actual increase was 25% – 49% – and only 5% of respondents experienced a 100%+ increase. The gap between feared and actual increases matters. Individual outcomes depend heavily on prior contract structure, CPU density, and negotiating leverage (Gartner Magic Quadrant for Cloud Infrastructure).

The market response has been decisive. According to CloudBolt’s January 2026 survey, 86% of organisations are actively reducing their VMware footprint. Gartner projects that 35% of VMware workloads will migrate to competing platforms by 2028 (The Register, Sep 2025), and their own client inquiry data shows VMware replacement questions spiked 275% year-on-year in the first half of 2024. VMware’s projected market share is expected to decline from approximately 70% in 2024 to around 40% by 2029 (CloudBolt, 2026) (The Register).

This article is a strategic guide, not a panic response. The goal is to give CIOs, CTOs, and senior infrastructure leaders a clear view of what changed, where the real risks sit, and what the decision looks like across three credible strategic options. The organisations doing this well are making deliberate choices – not reactive ones.

What Changed in the Broadcom Era

Gartner (2025) found that Broadcom’s commercial repositioning of VMware is fundamental, not incremental. Understanding the specific changes – licensing model, packaging, and partner ecosystem – is the foundation for any sensible strategic response.

Licensing Model Overhaul

The subscription transition is complete and permanent. Perpetual licences for vSphere, vSAN, and the broader VMware portfolio were eliminated effective early 2024 (Broadcom / SDxCentral, Q1 2024). The VMware catalogue was reduced from approximately 168 product bundles to four primary offerings: VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF), vSphere Foundation (VVF), VMware vSphere Standard (VVS), and the VMware vSphere Essentials Plus (VVEP) bundle (Redress Compliance, 2024). The commercial entry points are VCF at $350 per core per year and VVF at $135 per core per year at list price.

Effective April 2025, Broadcom raised the minimum core requirement from 16 to 72 physical cores per CPU (Rimini Street, 2025). For organisations running dual-socket servers with fewer than 72 physical cores per socket, this forces licensing above their actual utilisation. Combined with subscription compounding, three-year renewals now lock in the new pricing baseline permanently. Late renewal carries an additional penalty of 20 – 25% on top of the subscription price if the agreement lapses past its anniversary date (Broadcom policy).

Partner and Ecosystem Disruption

The channel restructuring is as significant as the pricing change. Broadcom cut the authorised VMware Cloud Service Provider (VCSP) partner base from approximately 4,500 providers worldwide to around 200 by 31 October 2025 (Channel Futures, Oct 2025). The White Label VCSP model was sunsetted entirely. The Registered partner tier was eliminated.

For enterprise buyers, the practical consequence is reduced choice. Many organisations that relied on VMware-specialist MSPs for support, licensing advisory, and managed services will find their current partner is no longer authorised. Replacement options are either a Pinnacle or Premier tier partner – typically larger organisations with higher rate cards – or internalising that management capability. Neither option is straightforward for mid-market organisations with lean IT teams.

Cost Impact in Practice

A concrete scenario illustrates the numbers. Consider a 4-node cluster: each node runs two sockets with 32 physical cores per socket, giving 256 total physical cores. At VCF list price, the annual cost is $89,600. Before Broadcom’s acquisition, a comparable configuration on a perpetual-plus-SnS basis might have cost $25,000 – $35,000 per year. The delta is the source of the budget conversations every CIO is now having.

The CloudBolt data is worth holding alongside the headline figures. In January 2026, 73% of organisations expected their costs to more than double (GlobeNewswire, Feb 2026). Only 5% actually experienced that outcome. The risk is real – but aggregate fear and individual outcome are not the same number. Your specific exposure depends on your prior contract type, your CPU density, and how effectively your team negotiated the renewal.

Citation capsule: Broadcom’s Broadcom VMware licensing strategy has delivered renewal cost increases ranging from 100% to 800% for enterprise customers, according to IDC (Aug 2024). The most common actual increase reported by enterprise buyers surveyed in early 2026 was 25% – 49%, with only 5% experiencing the feared doubling or worse (CloudBolt, Feb 2026). Outcome varies significantly by prior contract structure, CPU density, and negotiating leverage.

What Are the Real Risk Areas for VMware-Centric Infrastructure?

Gartner (2025) shows that the financial exposure from Broadcom’s changes is well-documented. The operational risks are discussed less often, but they matter as much for infrastructure planning decisions.

Lock-in Risk

VMware’s value proposition was always integration depth. NSX, vSAN, vCenter, vMotion, DRS, and Fault Tolerance are not interchangeable components – they’re a tightly coupled platform. Workloads that rely on vMotion for live migration, DRS for automated resource management, or NSX for micro-segmentation require re-architecture to move off VMware, not just a hypervisor swap.

Proprietary file formats add friction. VMDK disks convert cleanly to qcow2 or raw formats with available tooling, and OVF/OVA packaging is broadly supported. These are manageable hurdles, not barriers. The harder work is unpicking NSX network policies, vSAN storage policies, and DRS rules – dependencies that are rarely fully documented and often discovered mid-migration. In our experience, the actual complexity is consistently 30 – 50% higher than the pre-migration assessment suggests, because these dependencies are embedded in application configuration, not just infrastructure configuration.

Cost Escalation Risk

Subscription renewals compound in a way perpetual licences never did. A 3-year renewal signed at the new pricing baseline becomes the floor for the next renewal cycle. The minimum 72-core rule compounds this further for organisations running dense dual-socket servers where physical cores per CPU are below 72. You’re licensing cores you don’t have.

56% of organisations have changed their VMware strategy two or more times since the Broadcom acquisition. 41% report increased executive pressure to act (CloudBolt, Feb 2026). That kind of decision instability is itself a cost – in management time, planning cycles delayed, and infrastructure programmes that keep restarting.

Support and Renewal Pressure

vSphere 7 passed end of general support in 2025. Customers still on vSphere 7 now face pressure to upgrade to vSphere 8, which requires a new subscription agreement under Broadcom’s current model. That means even organisations trying to defer a decision are being forced into one. The pathway of “stay on vSphere 7 and wait” is no longer open.

Third-party support alternatives for VMware are also narrowing. Broadcom’s preferred model is direct-to-enterprise, and with only ~200 authorised VCSP partners globally (down from 4,500), third-party support coverage through the channel has contracted sharply. Organisations accustomed to competitive tension between their MSP options will find less of it.

MSP and Partner Ecosystem Impact

The VCSP reduction is not just a statistic – it has direct operational consequences. Many mid-market organisations that built their VMware managed service relationship with a regional or specialist MSP will find that partner lost authorisation in October 2025. The replacement options are a small number of large, authorised Pinnacle or Premier tier partners, or bringing management in-house.

There’s a second-order effect here that is under-discussed: the authorised partners that remain are now serving a much larger share of the market. That demand concentration is already creating capacity and responsiveness issues in the authorised channel – a dynamic that will affect renewal advisory quality, negotiation support, and implementation services through at least 2027.

What Are the Strategic Options for CIOs?

CIOs have three credible paths forward: stay and optimise, introduce gradual diversification, or execute a full transition (UK IT market pricing, 2025). Each is a legitimate choice depending on your organisation’s cost position, contract timeline, risk tolerance, and existing skill base. There is no universally correct answer.

Option 1: Stay and Optimise

What it means: Renew with Broadcom, but right-size the estate before doing so. Reduce core count, consolidate clusters, retire under-utilised VMs, and negotiate from a smaller, cleaner footprint.

Pros: No migration risk. No skills gap to fill. Lowest short-term disruption. All existing integrations – NSX, vSAN, Horizon VDI, third-party tooling – remain intact. For organisations mid-cycle on a 3-year term, this may simply be the only realistic option.

Cons: Locks in the subscription baseline at an elevated price. Relief requires a meaningful reduction in licensed core count. Dependent on Broadcom maintaining a stable roadmap, which no external party can guarantee.

Required capabilities: Strong FinOps discipline, licence management tooling (Flexera or Snow Software are the standard choices), and ideally third-party negotiation advisory for large renewals. Broadcom’s direct sales team is experienced at this negotiation; yours may not be.

Typical timeline: 3 – 6 months to right-size and renegotiate the footprint; ongoing subscription management thereafter.

When it makes sense: Deeply integrated VMware estates where NSX, vSAN, or Horizon VDI are central to operations, and where the re-platforming cost would exceed the licensing savings over the next 3 – 5 years. Also appropriate for organisations with fewer than 18 months to contract renewal who need planning stability.

Option 2: Gradual Diversification

What it means: Introduce a KVM-based platform, cloud IaaS, or container infrastructure for new workloads and non-critical VMs, while keeping VMware for mission-critical applications. Build competency on the new platform before committing to a full exit.

Pros: Manages migration risk by starting with lower-stakes workloads. Builds internal capability over time. Hedges against further Broadcom price increases. Creates genuine negotiating leverage at renewal – the threat of moving more workloads is credible if you’ve already demonstrated it.

Cons: Running dual platforms increases operational overhead significantly. Without governance, you risk sprawl: two management planes, two skill sets, two support channels. Skills requirements expand before the VMware footprint shrinks.

Required capabilities: A platform engineering team with KVM and Linux administration skills. FinOps tooling that can track cost per workload across platforms from day one. A clear, maintained workload classification policy – without this, the “non-critical workloads first” principle erodes quickly under delivery pressure.

Typical timeline: 12 – 24 months to establish the alternative stack and migrate the first tranche of workloads. Three or more years to reach material VMware footprint reduction. Gartner’s 18 – 48 month estimate for full migrations (The Register, Sep 2025) is more relevant to this path than to a full transition.

When it makes sense: Organisations with 18 – 36 months on the current contract. Organisations where container-first or cloud-first modernisation goals align with the migration work. Teams that have the capacity to absorb parallel platform learning without disrupting current service delivery.

Option 3: Full Transition Off VMware

What it means: A systematic programme to migrate all, or the vast majority of, virtualised workloads to alternative platforms within a defined timeframe. VMware is deliberately run down to zero or near-zero licences.

Pros: Maximum long-term cost relief. Removes Broadcom dependency entirely. Forces an application modernisation review that many organisations have deferred for years.

Cons: Highest short-term risk and cost. Gartner estimates $300 to $3,000 per VM for external migration services, depending on complexity (Network World, 2025). Full estate migrations for large enterprises consistently run 18 – 48 months (The Register, Sep 2025). Skills gap risk is significant – most infrastructure teams have deep VMware expertise and limited experience on alternative platforms.

Required capabilities: Dedicated programme governance with executive sponsorship. Migration tooling (Zerto, Veeam, or Carbonite Move are the most commonly deployed options). Application owners engaged from day one, not as a later phase. Hypervisor skills on the target platform – either hired or contracted through a specialist partner.

Typical timeline: 18 – 48 months for large enterprises. Three or more years when application dependencies are fully included. Organisations that budget for 18 months and start without accounting for application-layer work consistently miss their targets.

When it makes sense: Contract renewals are 12+ months away and the renewal quote exceeds 200% uplift. The organisation already has an active infrastructure refresh cycle planned. There is a strategic mandate – cloud-first, container-first, or platform consolidation – that the migration programme can serve directly.

Table: Strategic options comparison for VMware-dependent enterprises – VirtuallyPro analysis, 2026. Migration timelines based on Gartner estimates (The Register, Sep 2025).

!Close-up of circuit board components representing the technology decisions facing IT infrastructure teams.

Photo: Unsplash

How Do You Evaluate Alternatives to VMware?

Gartner (2025) reports that No single platform replaces VMware across all enterprise requirements (Gartner, 2025). Evaluation must align platform characteristics to workload profiles and to your operational model. A recommendation that works for a 200-VM estate on Nutanix may be entirely wrong for a 4,000-VM estate with deep NSX dependencies.

See also: The Complete Enterprise Guide to VMware vSphere Alternatives (2026)

KVM-Based Commercial Platforms

The three platforms most commonly evaluated in enterprise RFPs for VMware replacement are Red Hat OpenShift Virtualisation Engine, Nutanix AHV, and HPE Morpheus VM Essentials.

Red Hat OpenShift Virtualisation Engine runs KVM under the hood and enables VMs and containers to coexist on the same platform. It’s a strong choice for organisations that already have an OpenShift investment or a strategic direction towards container-native operations. List price is approximately $1,904 per 1 – 2 socket server per year. It requires OpenShift expertise, which is not a small ask – but the Red Hat partner network is broad and certified training is accessible.

Nutanix AHV is bundled with Nutanix Cloud Infrastructure (NCI) and does not carry a separate hypervisor licence fee. 88% of Nutanix customers are now on AHV (Nutanix FY2025 earnings, Aug 2025). Nutanix acquired 2,700+ VMware replacement customers in FY2025 alone, and they cite approximately 200,000 remaining VMware customers as their addressable migration market. The platform has strong disaster recovery capabilities, and Nutanix Prism Central provides cross-site management. Pricing is via quotation – no public list price.

HPE Morpheus VM Essentials is the lowest per-socket commercial option, at approximately $600 per socket per year at list price. It’s KVM-based, hardware-agnostic, and designed specifically for organisations replacing vSphere without committing to a full HCI investment. It suits organisations that want a direct hypervisor replacement without changing storage architecture.

Public Cloud IaaS

Public cloud IaaS is the destination for 72% of migrating workloads, making it the dominant migration path by volume (CloudBolt – a VMware migration services vendor – Jan 2026 survey of 302 enterprise IT decision-makers). AWS EC2, Azure Virtual Machines, and Google Compute Engine all support VM lift-and-shift via third-party migration tooling. VMware HCX, which previously facilitated VMware-to-cloud migration, was deprecated by Broadcom in 2024 as part of the portfolio consolidation (Broadcom End-of-Life notification, 2024).

Cloud economics are not universally favourable. Egress costs, compliance and data residency requirements, and FinOps governance all need to be in place before committing workloads to public cloud. Always-on, compute-intensive workloads frequently carry lower total cost of ownership on-premises than in cloud IaaS. The 72% migration-to-cloud figure reflects where workloads are going – it does not mean cloud is always the right destination for your specific workloads.

Azure Local (formerly Azure Stack HCI) deserves separate consideration for Microsoft-centric environments. It runs Azure-managed Hyper-V on-premises at a list price of $10 per core per month. For organisations deep in the Microsoft 365 ecosystem, unified management through Azure Arc and Windows Admin Centre is a genuine operational advantage.

Container-First Platforms

Kubernetes and OpenShift represent appropriate destinations for applications with modern 12-factor architecture. They are not like-for-like replacements for legacy applications that require VM persistence. This distinction is frequently glossed over in migration planning, and it’s the source of most failed first attempts at container migration.

OpenShift Virtualisation – running VM workloads on top of Kubernetes – acts as a bridging technology for organisations not yet at full containerisation. It allows a phased approach: VMs migrate to OpenShift Virt first, and containerisation follows as applications are modernised. Forrester noted in October 2024 that “new architecture” is the third most cited driver of VMware footprint reduction, after cloud migration and on-premises alternatives.

Hyperconverged and Software-Defined Storage

For organisations specifically vacating vSAN, the storage replacement question is as important as the hypervisor question. Nutanix provides integrated HCI with AHV. Ceph, paired with Proxmox VE, offers open-source software-defined storage with no per-node licence cost – but it requires Linux storage expertise that many teams don’t currently have. HPE SimpliVity is an established HCI choice for SME and mid-market. For smaller estates, StarWind VSAN and StorMagic offer lightweight, lower-cost options.

Citation capsule: A Rimini Street survey of 110+ enterprise VMware customers in Q3 2024 found that 98% are using, planning, or actively considering alternatives to VMware. (Note: Rimini Street provides third-party software support services and has a commercial interest in VMware migration; treat as directional evidence alongside independent analyst data.) Among those evaluating alternatives, Microsoft Hyper-V was being assessed by 69% of respondents, Red Hat Virtualisation by 45%, Nutanix by 19%, and KVM/Proxmox by approximately 10 – 11%. Thirty-six percent had already completed some form of switch (Rimini Street, Q3 2024).

What Are the Practical Migration and Coexistence Patterns?

According to Gartner (2025), most enterprise migrations don’t start cleanly. You’re not working with a greenfield estate – you’re working with a production environment running workloads that have been accumulating VMware-specific dependencies for a decade or more.

Brownfield Realities: What to Move First

Start with Tier 2 and Tier 3 workloads. Development environments, test systems, isolated application servers with no external network dependencies, and batch processing workloads are all low-blast-radius candidates. These are where you build migration confidence, refine tooling, and develop team competency before touching anything that has an SLA attached.

Defer the hardest workloads. Databases with VMware HA or Fault Tolerance dependencies, application tiers integrated with NSX policies, and VDI desktops require the most validation time. They’re not impossible to migrate – they just need more runway and more application owner involvement.

Application owners must be engaged at the start of the programme, not partway through. Infrastructure-only migration teams consistently run into application-layer dependencies mid-project. Workload classification needs three axes: blast radius if the migration fails, dependency complexity (NSX, vSAN, HA, FT, vMotion), and re-platformability (containerisable, VM-persistent, or needs refactoring).

Coexistence Patterns

Dual-stack (VMware + KVM) is the most common pattern during phase one. It requires separate management planes initially, which is the source of most of the operational overhead in a gradual diversification strategy. Some tooling – Nutanix Prism Central, HPE Morpheus – provides cross-platform VM management and reduces this burden meaningfully.

VMware + Cloud is the simplest governance model for organisations moving new workloads to public cloud while legacy workloads remain on VMware. It requires FinOps discipline to prevent cloud cost drift, but the management boundary is relatively clean. This pattern works well for organisations with 18+ months on their VMware contract and a cloud-first mandate for net-new workloads.

VMware + Container is appropriate for organisations where new application deployments are going to Kubernetes while VMs remain on VMware during the transition period. OpenShift Virt bridges the gap for workloads that can’t be containerised immediately. It’s a valid pattern, but it adds the most operational complexity of the three.

Dual-stack adds operational overhead regardless of which combination you choose. Budget explicitly for this – a conservative estimate is 15 – 20% additional operational cost during the transition window, which in practice spans 12 – 36 months.

Governance, FinOps, and Monitoring

Establish a workload registry before migration begins. It should capture: workload owner, SLA tier, VMware-specific features in active use, dependency map, and re-platformability classification. This is the asset that prevents the project from stalling when a dependency is discovered mid-migration.

FinOps governance must span platforms from day one. Implement tagging policies on cloud resources before the first workload migrates. Track cost per workload across the full estate – not just cloud spend and VMware spend in separate tools. Without this, dual-stack becomes financially opaque very quickly.

Cross-platform observability is a specific requirement that is frequently underestimated. Platform-native monitoring tools (vCenter metrics, Azure Monitor, Prism Central analytics) create visibility gaps during transition. Datadog, Grafana with Prometheus, or a similar platform-agnostic observability stack should be in place before the first production workload moves.

Decision Framework: How Do You Choose?

Before selecting a strategy, run your organisation through a structured assessment, according to Gartner (2025). The goal is to move from “we need to do something about VMware” to a specific, defensible position that leadership can commit to.

The Assessment Checklist

Business and financial drivers

• [ ] What is the projected renewal cost increase at the next anniversary date?
• [ ] Does the budget hold capacity for a multi-year migration programme?
• [ ] Has executive leadership committed to a modernisation mandate, or is this a cost-only conversation?

Contractual position

• [ ] When does the current VMware agreement expire?
• [ ] Are you on a 1-, 2-, or 3-year term? (Longer terms provide more planning runway.)
• [ ] Have you received a renewal quote in writing, or are you working from list prices?

Technical estate

• [ ] Which VMware-specific features are in active use: NSX, vSAN, vMotion, DRS, FT, Horizon VDI?
• [ ] What is the total physical core count across all VMware-licensed hosts?
• [ ] Are workloads containerisable, or are they legacy applications requiring VM persistence?

Skills and capacity

• [ ] Does your team have KVM and Linux administration skills?
• [ ] Is there programme management capacity for an 18 – 48 month migration?
• [ ] Is your current VMware MSP still an authorised Broadcom partner?

Risk tolerance

• [ ] What is the organisation’s tolerance for infrastructure downtime during migration windows?
• [ ] Are there regulatory constraints – data residency, audit continuity – that limit cloud migration options?
• [ ] What is the reputational cost of a migration incident versus a licensing cost increase?

Organisation Archetypes

Most organisations map to one of three profiles. These are not rigid categories, but they’re a useful starting point for structuring the internal conversation.

Archetype 1: The Cost-Pressured Organisation

Profile: The renewal quote represents a 200%+ increase. FinOps is driving the agenda. Leadership has mandated infrastructure spend reduction with limited appetite for a multi-year programme.

Likely strategy: Gradual Diversification, targeting the highest-cost clusters first. Move development and test workloads to Proxmox, KVM, or an alternative commercial hypervisor within 6 – 12 months to reduce the licensed core count before the renewal date. Negotiate renewal on the smaller, right-sized footprint.

Key risk: Underestimating migration complexity. We’ve found that first estimates are consistently 20 – 30% below actual effort, particularly when application owners haven’t been engaged early. Build that buffer in.

Archetype 2: The Innovation-Driven Organisation

Profile: A cloud-native or platform engineering strategy is already active. The VMware estate is inherited legacy infrastructure, not a strategic asset. The DevOps team is already working in containers.

Likely strategy: Full Transition with a container-first destination. Net-new workloads go to Kubernetes immediately. A structured brownfield exit programme runs over 24 – 36 months for the remaining VM estate.

Key risk: Application owners may not be aligned. Legacy application re-platforming effort frequently exceeds infrastructure migration effort by a factor of two or more. The infrastructure programme will stall unless application modernisation is formally in scope.

Archetype 3: The Risk-Averse Organisation

Profile: Highly regulated – financial services, healthcare, critical national infrastructure. VMware is deeply integrated with NSX and vSAN. The operational risk of disruption is genuinely higher than the financial pain of an elevated licence cost.

Likely strategy: Stay and Optimise in the short term. Invest in workload rationalisation and footprint reduction. Begin evaluating alternatives now – run proof of concepts, build the skills baseline, identify migration tooling – but don’t commit to migration until the next contract renewal window provides a natural forcing point.

Key risk: This strategy works as a 3-year transition plan. It does not work as a permanent decision. Treat it as a bridge, not a destination. Forrester (Oct 2024) found that VMware’s largest 2,000 customers will shrink their deployments by an average of 40% in 2025 – even the most conservative enterprises are moving.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I Still Buy VMware Perpetual Licences?

No. Broadcom eliminated perpetual licences in early 2024. Only subscription-based agreements are available. The two primary commercial options are VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) at $350 per core per year and vSphere Foundation (VVF) at $135 per core per year. There is no perpetual option, and Broadcom has given no indication of reversing this decision.

See also: Broadcom VMware Licensing: What Edinburgh SMEs Need to Know

What Happens If I Miss My VMware Renewal Date?

Broadcom applies a late renewal penalty of 20 – 25% on top of the subscription price if the agreement lapses past its anniversary date (Broadcom policy). Renewals should be initiated 90 – 120 days in advance. Missing the date is an expensive and entirely avoidable outcome – calendar the anniversary date and start the renewal process well ahead of it.

How Long Does a Full VMware Migration Actually Take?

Gartner estimates 18 – 48 months for large enterprise migrations (The Register, Sep 2025). Selective re-platforming of individual applications can be as short as 6 – 12 months. Full estate migrations consistently extend beyond 3 years when application dependencies are included in scope. The most common reason migrations run long is application-layer discovery that wasn’t completed before the programme started.

What Alternatives Does Gartner Recommend?

Gartner analyst Julia Palmer’s ranked list from September 2025 placed Nutanix first, public cloud IaaS second, Azure Local third, Windows Server/Hyper-V fourth, and Red Hat Virtualisation fifth. Palmer’s broader point was equally important: “We are all addicted to hypervisors, and that needs to change.” She recommended treating migration as an opportunity for application modernisation, not just an infrastructure lift-and-shift exercise.

Does It Make Sense to Move Everything to the Public Cloud?

For some workloads, yes. CloudBolt’s January 2026 survey found that 72% of organisations moving workloads are sending them to public cloud IaaS (GlobeNewswire, Feb 2026). However, cloud economics favour elastic and intermittent workloads. Always-on, compute-intensive applications frequently carry lower total cost of ownership on-premises. Cloud is a strong destination for the right workloads – it’s not a universal answer.

See also: Cloud Migration for Edinburgh Businesses

Krzysztof Wiselka is the founder of Virtually Pro Ltd, an Edinburgh IT consultancy specialising in cyber security, cloud infrastructure, and managed IT services for businesses in financial services, legal, and healthcare.