The VMware licensing trap for SMEs: the Essentials Kit has no successor
Editorial note: The information in this article was compiled to the best of our knowledge at the time of publication. Technical details, prices, versions, licensing terms, and external content may change. Please verify the information provided independently, particularly before making business-critical or security-related decisions. This article does not replace individual professional, legal, or tax advice.
Is your VMware renewal coming up? WZ-IT works through the licensing position, sets alternatives against it and supports the move, see Proxmox instead of VMware. Work through it with us
Coverage of VMware pricing works with large numbers: fourfold increases, 60 per cent extra cost, percentages from analyst reports. Such figures are striking and useless for your planning, because Broadcom publishes no price list and every question of terms is negotiated through a partner.
What can be evidenced instead are the structural changes, and one of them hits small environments particularly: the product intended for three-host clusters no longer exists, and it has no successor.
This article sets out what actually changed, what of it was reversed, and how to work out your own position rather than planning with someone else's numbers. As of 31 August 2026.
Table of contents
- What actually changed
- The Essentials Kit and its missing successor
- The 72-core episode and what to learn from it
- Why figures from blog posts do not hold here
- How to work out your own position
- When the decision falls
- What a move really costs
- When VMware remains the right choice
- How we approach this at WZ-IT
- Further guides
What actually changed
Broadcom acquired VMware in November 2023. Since then three changes are evidenced and permanent:
| Change | Consequence |
|---|---|
| No more perpetual licences | Subscriptions only, over one, three or five years |
| Billing per core instead of per processor | Minimum quantities weigh more heavily on small environments |
| Portfolio consolidated | The Essentials and Essentials Plus kits were discontinued |
Existing perpetual licences keep running. What ends is continuation under the previous model at the next renewal.
The Essentials Kit and its missing successor
The vSphere Essentials Kit and Essentials Plus Kit were the answer to a particular size: three hosts, a manageable core count, and a price a mid-sized company could approve without a tender.
Both were discontinued. No direct successor for that size exists. Those affected are directed to vSphere Foundation, a bundle containing components small environments do not need and priced accordingly.
That is the actual news for mid-sized companies, and it gets lost in the discussion of percentages. The point is not that the same product became more expensive. The point is that the fitting product is no longer offered and the remaining bundles are cut for a different audience.
Anyone virtualising three hosts today buys a bundle designed for larger environments, or changes platform. There is no third option.
The 72-core episode and what to learn from it
In April 2025 Broadcom announced it would raise the minimum order from 16 to 72 cores per subscription. For a cluster with 32 cores that would have meant licensing 72 and never using 40 of them.
After protests from mid-sized companies, remote offices and public-sector data centres, the decision was reversed within the same year. A 16-core minimum applies again.
That episode matters for two reasons.
First, practically: anyone reading an analysis from 2025 finds the 72 there and plans with a figure that no longer applies. A number of comparison sites still carry it.
Second, fundamentally: the terms have changed several times within two years, in both directions. Anyone basing a platform decision on announced terms is basing it on something that may change again before the next renewal. That is the real planning risk, not the level of any single price.
Why figures from blog posts do not hold here
Concrete case figures circulate: a financial services firm whose bill quadrupled, a mid-sized company whose budget rose from 35,000 to over 200,000 euros.
Such figures are usable as an indication and not as a basis for planning, for a simple reason: Broadcom publishes no price list. Terms are negotiated through partners and depend on core count, term, bundle and negotiating position. Two companies of the same size can receive different offers.
Only a quote for your specific environment is reliable. Everything else is context.
We therefore deliberately state no euro amounts in this article. What we provide instead is the route to your own figure.
How to work out your own position
Four data points are enough to assess a quote:
1. Cores, not hosts. Add up the physical cores of all hosts being virtualised. That is the billing basis. Three hosts with two processors of 16 cores each come to 96 cores.
2. The minimum quantity. Currently 16 cores per subscription. With small hosts that can mean licensing more than is installed.
3. The bundle. Establish which bundle you are being offered and which of its components you will actually use. Bundles regularly contain parts that go unused in small environments but sit in the price.
4. The term. A price for one year and a price for five years are different statements. Ask for both and convert to annual cost.
With those four data points a quote can be compared against an alternative. Without them, impressions are being compared.
When the decision falls
There is no reason for haste. Existing environments keep running, and a migration under time pressure is the most expensive way to carry one out.
The point at which a decision falls is the next contract renewal. From that follows a sensible run-up:
| Timing | What is due |
|---|---|
| 9 to 12 months before | Obtain a quote, establish the core count, assess alternatives roughly |
| 6 months before | Rehearse the alternative in a test environment with real machines |
| 3 months before | Decide, and on a move, set the order of work |
| Renewal | Move, or renew deliberately on negotiated terms |
Anyone with that run-up negotiates differently. A quote against which a rehearsed alternative exists is assessed differently from one with no fallback.
What a move really costs
The most common mistake in the business case is setting licence costs against licence costs. That favours the move and is incomplete.
What belongs in it:
The migration itself. Transferring virtual machines is a solved problem. The effort sits in the ordering, the maintenance windows and the fallback path that has to stay open.
The backup. Backup solutions for vSphere work through interfaces that do not exist in that form under Proxmox. Proxmox Backup Server takes over the job but has to be set up and the restore rehearsed.
The monitoring. Existing checks and alerts reach into vSphere and have to be rebuilt. Which tools come into question we assessed in the monitoring comparison.
Third-party support statements. Check before deciding whether an application in use is explicitly supported only on vSphere. That is rare, but where it applies it settles the question.
Familiarisation. A team that has known vSphere for ten years needs time for a new interface and different terminology.
With all that included, the result still favours a move in most mid-sized environments, but the benefit arrives later than the pure licence calculation suggests.
When VMware remains the right choice
There are environments where a move is not the right answer:
- Applications with support statements only for vSphere, where deviating costs vendor support
- Very large installations, where negotiating room is greater and migration effort is considerable
- Environments shortly before a planned refresh anyway, where the question reappears in eighteen months
- Teams without capacity for a migration, as long as the cost is bearable
In those cases the right work is not the move but the negotiation: term, bundle scope, and the conditions for the renewal after next.
How we approach this at WZ-IT
We start with the core count and the contract date, not with a product recommendation. Together they establish how much time remains for an orderly decision.
Where a move comes into question, we build a test environment with real machines from the estate, not with examples. Only once migration, backup and restore have worked there is the alternative solid. What the move means technically we described in the comparison of Proxmox VE and VMware.
We take on ongoing operations on request, including backup, monitoring and updates within an agreed window.
Further guides
- Proxmox VE 9.2 versus VMware - the technical comparison
- Moving from VMware to Proxmox - approach and support
- Proxmox Backup Server - backup after the move
- Migrating from VMware - the technical steps
- Monitoring compared - rebuilding monitoring
When does your contract expire? We establish the core count, assess a quote and build a rehearsed alternative before a decision has to be made. Book a call
Sources
Work through VMware costs and alternatives
We establish your actual licensing position, cost out a move and support the migration.
Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to important questions about this topic
No. Broadcom discontinued both the Essentials and Essentials Plus kits without offering a direct successor for small environments. Those affected are directed to vSphere Foundation, which contains more and is priced accordingly.
No. Broadcom announced in April 2025 that it would raise the minimum order from 16 to 72 cores and reversed that decision within the same year after protests. A 16-core minimum applies again. Anyone reading a figure from 2025 in a quote should check it against the current position.
No. Since Broadcom's acquisition in November 2023, VMware sells subscriptions only, with terms of one, three or five years. Existing perpetual licences keep running but receive no new maintenance under the previous model.
That cannot be answered generally, because Broadcom publishes no price list and terms are negotiated through partners. Only a quote for your specific core count and term is reliable. Anyone taking a figure from a blog post into their planning is planning with a number nobody has confirmed.
Because billing is per core and minimum quantities apply. A three-host cluster with few cores pays proportionally far more than a large data centre, and the product intended for exactly that size no longer exists.
No. Existing environments keep running. The point at which a decision falls is the next contract renewal. Until then there is time to evaluate and rehearse a move rather than decide it under time pressure.
For most mid-sized environments yes. Live migration, high availability, backup through Proxmox Backup Server and cluster operation are all present. Where VMware retains advantages is very large installations, certain third-party certifications, and applications explicitly supported only on vSphere.
Not transferring the virtual machines but the surroundings: backup chains, monitoring, automation, permissions and the question of which application loses its support statement. Moving a VM technically is a solved problem; the operating environment around it is the work.
That depends on the number of machines and the maintenance windows, not on the technology. For a three-host cluster with twenty to thirty machines, a period of several weeks is realistic when migrating in stages with a fallback path kept open.
It is rebuilt. Backup solutions for vSphere work through interfaces that do not exist in that form under Proxmox. Proxmox Backup Server takes over that job but has to be set up and verified. A migration without a rehearsed restore is not a finished migration.
Usually yes, but the calculation has to include the transition effort. Anyone comparing licence costs alone is calculating in favour of the move. Anyone including working time for migration, training and a new backup gets a solid figure that still generally favours the move, but later.
That is a viable decision where costs are calculable and the environment is built for it. What matters then is negotiating the contract with the term in mind and settling the conditions for the renewal after next, rather than being surprised each time.
Written by
Timo Wevelsiep
Co-Founder & CEO
Co-Founder of WZ-IT. Specialized in cloud infrastructure, open-source platforms and managed services for SMEs and enterprise clients worldwide.
LinkedInLet's Talk About Your Idea
Whether a specific IT challenge or just an idea - we look forward to the exchange. In a brief conversation, we'll evaluate together if and how your project fits with WZ-IT.
Arrange a callback
Companies worldwide trust WZ-IT
