Cost Over 3 Years – Subscription vs Subscription (vSphere+ vs VCF)

Cost Over 3 Years – Subscription vs Subscription (vSphere+ vs VCF)

Both vSphere+ and VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) are sold as subscriptions, but you’re not buying the same things under each model. vSphere+ focuses on core compute (hypervisor and management) delivered via a subscription. In contrast, VCF bundles the full software-defined data center stack (compute, storage, network, and cloud management) into a single subscription.

This difference in scope means a straightforward price comparison is misleading – you need to compare what’s in the cart, not just the price tag.

In this guide, we provide a three-year total cost of ownership (TCO) comparison framework to help you evaluate vSphere+ versus VCF in a like-for-like manner.

Pro Tip: Compare the cart, not just the price tag.

Read our strategic guide, VMware Licensing Models Compared – Cloud Foundation vs vSphere+.

What Each Model Includes (Cost Implications)

Understanding what’s included in each subscription is the first step, since it determines what additional costs you will or won’t have to budget for:

• vSphere+ (Core Compute Focus): This is a per-core subscription covering your hypervisor (vSphere) and giving access to a cloud-based management console for centralized administration. The subscription mainly covers compute and basic management. Add-ons are optional – for example, if you want Kubernetes capabilities (Tanzu) or advanced security, those might cost extra. Crucially, storage and networking are not included with vSphere+. You’d continue to use and pay for your existing storage area network (SAN) or hyper-converged infrastructure, and any network virtualization or security tools separately. In short, vSphere+ keeps the focus on compute, and anything beyond the hypervisor layer remains a separate cost line.
• VMware Cloud Foundation (Full Stack Bundle): VCF is a bundle that includes vSphere (compute), VMware vSAN (software-defined storage), VMware NSX (software-defined networking), and VMware Aria suite (cloud management and automation tools, formerly vRealize). All these are licensed together, typically on a per-core (or per-CPU) basis as one package. The base price is higher per core because you’re getting a lot more functionality bundled in. The upside is you may reduce spending on third-party tools – for example, you might not need to purchase a separate storage array or network security software if you fully leverage vSAN and NSX. VCF also includes integrated lifecycle management (through SDDC Manager), which can reduce operational friction and labor costs for upgrades and maintenance.

Takeaway: If you already have and will maintain robust external solutions for storage, networking, and tooling, vSphere+ often has the lower TCO because you’re not paying for features you won’t use.

However, suppose you intend to adopt VMware’s full stack (using vSAN for storage, NSX for network virtualization, and Aria for management).

In that case, VCF can consolidate your spending and potentially save costs by replacing those separate products and simplifying operations.

Read our deployment comparison, VMware Deployment Model Differences – On-Prem vs SaaS (VCF vs vSphere+).

3-Year TCO Model – Inputs & Formulas (Framework)

To compare vSphere+ vs VCF on equal footing, build a 3-year TCO model that line-items each cost element. Below is a framework of cost blocks, with formulas for how to calculate each over three years:

Using this framework, you can plug in values for your environment. Key inputs (assumptions) to gather upfront:

• Hardware resources: Number of hosts (H), cores per host, and total cores (C = H × cores_per_host). This drives the subscription cost directly.
• Storage needs: Total storage capacity (in TB) and whether you’d use existing storage or vSAN. If you have a large SAN investment, note its costs or depreciation.
• Network needs: Features like micro-segmentation or overlay networking are required. If you need these, note the cost of your current solution or consider the value of NSX if included.
• Support level: Determine what portion of your environment truly needs 24×7 Premium Support versus standard business hours. Premium support costs can significantly increase subscription fees if applied to all cores.
• Tooling and automation: List any third-party management, monitoring, or backup tools you pay for. In a VCF scenario, some of these might be replaced by included Aria services – but only if you plan to use them.
• Operational costs: Current personnel costs for managing the infrastructure and tools. Consider if VCF’s integrated approach could reduce admin effort or if vSphere+ simplicity helps in operations.

Pro Tip: Don’t force-fit “bundle value” – itemize each layer. In other words, credit VCF only for the components you will actually use. Line-item costs for storage, network, etc., rather than assuming the bundle automatically equals savings.

Read our feature comparison – Feature Comparison – VMware Cloud Foundation vs vSphere+.

Example Estate – Inputs (For Illustration Only)

Let’s apply the model to a hypothetical data center environment to see how the numbers might shake out. This example will be used for comparing scenarios:

• Infrastructure size: 10 hosts, each with 32 cores (dual-socket servers). Total cores C = 10 × 32 = 320 cores.
• VM workload: Approximately 600 virtual machines, a mix of production and development/test.
• Current environment: The organization uses a third-party enterprise SAN for storage (with adequate capacity for now) and relies on traditional network gear (VLANs and physical firewalls) for network segmentation. There’s no software-defined networking like NSX in place currently.
• Operational staff: Managing the virtual environment requires about 2 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff for the platform (operations, maintenance) and another 0.5 FTE dedicated to managing various tooling (monitoring, backups, scripts, etc.).
• Support contracts: Only the production cluster (about 60% of the cores) has 24×7 premium support coverage. The remaining 40% (dev/test) use standard support hours to save cost.
• Costs approach: We will compare relative outcomes as a percentage of a baseline, rather than using actual currency amounts or VMware list prices. This keeps the focus on cost difference over three years rather than specific pricing, which can vary by contract.

(In this example, we assume the third-party storage and network costs remain the same in both scenarios unless vSAN or NSX replaces them under VCF.)

Illustrative 3-Year Outcomes – Scenario A vs B

Using the example above, we can model two contrasting scenarios to see how 3-year costs might differ between vSphere+ and VCF:

Scenario A – “Compute-Only” Shop: The company continues to use external storage, networking, and tools, and only requires the virtualization layer from VMware.

• vSphere+ approach: Subscribe to vSphere+ for the 320 cores (covering ESXi and vCenter functionality). Continue to use the existing SAN for storage, physical network devices for networking, and third-party or in-house tools for things like monitoring or backups. Essentially, vSphere+ provides the compute layer and cloud management, and everything else remains as-is (paid separately).
• VCF approach: Subscribe to VMware Cloud Foundation for 320 cores, which includes vSphere, vSAN, NSX, and Aria. In this scenario, however, the company might not actually use vSAN or NSX fully because they prefer to stick with their current SAN and network setup. They end up paying for the full VCF bundle, but a chunk of those capabilities (software-defined storage/network) are under-utilized. They might also continue using their existing monitoring or backup tools instead of VMware Aria features, at least initially.

Likely Result (Scenario A): The vSphere+ option serves as our baseline (100%) for cost. VCF’s total 3-year cost is likely significantly higher than vSphere+ in this compute-only scenario – roughly in the range of 120% to 145% of the vSphere+ baseline. Why? Because with VCF, you are paying for vSAN, NSX, and Aria in the subscription, in addition to still paying for your external SAN, network gear, and third-party tools (since you chose not to drop them). The bundle’s extra cost doesn’t translate into value if those features aren’t used, making VCF comparatively expensive in this scenario.

Scenario B – “Full-Stack” Standardization: The company decides to fully adopt VMware’s stack for storage, network, and management.

• vSphere+ approach: Subscribe to vSphere+ for compute (320 cores), plus purchase or maintain separate solutions for storage, network virtualization, and management. This might include buying a new SAN or hyper-converged hardware, licenses for a software-defined networking solution or security appliances, and perhaps a suite of automation or monitoring tools. Essentially, you build a full infrastructure using vSphere+ at the core, but you pay for the full stack through multiple vendors/products outside of VMware.
• VCF approach: Subscribe to VMware Cloud Foundation for 320 cores and leverage all included components. In this case, you would deploy vSAN on those 10 hosts to handle storage (potentially allowing you to retire or avoid buying an external SAN), use NSX to handle network virtualization and security (replacing or reducing reliance on physical network appliances or other SDN software), and utilize VMware’s Aria Suite for cloud management/automation (instead of separate third-party tools). Operations like patching and upgrades are unified under VCF’s lifecycle manager, which could save admin time and reduce the complexity of managing multiple disparate systems.

Likely Result (Scenario B): We again take the vSphere+ stack as baseline (100%) over 3 years, which in this case includes the costs of all the separate third-party products and hardware needed to match VCF’s functionality.

By contrast, VCF’s 3-year cost in a full-stack scenario could be roughly 90% to 110% of that baseline. In other words, VCF might be cost-competitive with, or even a bit cheaper than, assembling the equivalent capabilities à la carte with vSphere+.

The degree of savings or parity depends on how effectively you utilize the VCF bundle:

• Suppose you fully replace big-ticket items (like expensive SAN hardware or high-end security gear) with VCF’s built-in components. In that case, VCF can potentially come in lower (closer to 90%) because it consolidates those costs.
• If you adopt some but not all of the components (for example, you use vSAN but not NSX, or vice versa), the VCF cost might land around parity or slightly above vSphere+ (toward the 100–110% range), because some external costs remain.

Below is a summary comparison of the two scenarios, with vSphere+ costs as the baseline in each case (set to 100) and VCF’s cost shown relative to that baseline:

As the table shows, VCF costs more than vSphere+ in Scenario A because its included extras aren’t utilized (you’re essentially paying twice for some capabilities).

In Scenario B, however, VCF’s integrated approach can break even or even cost less than piecing together the stack with vSphere+, provided you actually use the bundled components to their fullest.

Pro Tip: VCF only pays off if you actually turn on and use the bundled features. Don’t invest in the full stack subscription if you plan to treat it like a basic vSphere license – it’s not cost-effective.

Sensitivity Analysis – What Moves the Needle

Every environment is different. Certain factors can swing the cost comparison one way or the other. When modeling your 3-year costs, pay attention to these sensitivity factors:

• Cores per Host: Higher core-count servers can magnify per-core subscription costs. For example, doubling the number of cores per host doubles the subscription cost for that host. If you consolidate workloads on fewer, beefier hosts, check how the licensing minimums or per-core pricing scale. The economics of vSphere+ vs VCF might shift if one model has a different per-core price or better volume discount at higher core counts.
• Support Level Coverage: Deciding to put 24×7 premium support on all cores vs. only on critical systems can significantly change your costs. Premium support might add, say, 10–25% to the base subscription cost. If you apply that uplift across 100% of your environment when it’s not needed for non-production, you could be overpaying. Right-sizing support (premium only where truly required) can save tens of thousands over 3 years.
• Existing SAN Depreciation: Consider where you are in the lifecycle of your current storage solution. If your external SAN is fully depreciated (or already bought and paid for), switching to vSAN via VCF won’t avoid that past cost – and you might not save much immediately, because your SAN’s ongoing cost is low (maintenance only). On the other hand, if you’re due for a costly storage refresh, the value of vSAN in VCF increases, as it could replace the need to buy new storage hardware.
• Need for NSX (Network Virtualization): If your organization requires advanced network features like micro-segmentation, software-defined networking, or network automation, consider these factors heavily. VCF includes NSX, which delivers those capabilities. If you stick with vSphere+, you might have to invest in separate network virtualization solutions or security appliances. The cost of those external solutions (and their integration) can tilt the balance—VCF might become more attractive if NSX can replace them.
• Operational Efficiency: Think about the people and process costs. VCF’s integrated management (one lifecycle manager for the whole stack) could reduce the time your engineers spend on updates, troubleshooting disparate systems, or coordinating between teams. If you quantify that as, say, a fraction of an FTE or fewer outages, it can be a part of the TCO. Conversely, if your team is already streamlined or you have automation in place with your current tools, VCF might not save much in operations. Any efficiency gains with one model or the other should be included in the cost model (even if qualitatively).

By adjusting these factors in your model (doing a sensitivity analysis), you can see which assumptions cause the cost comparison to tip in favor of vSphere+ or VCF. This helps identify the conditions under which one option makes more financial sense than the other.

Interpreting the Results (Executive Takeaways)

After crunching the numbers, step back and draw some high-level conclusions that an executive audience will care about. In summary:

• If you’re primarily compute-centric and have significant investments in storage, networking, and tooling outside of VMware, vSphere+ will usually be the cheaper path. You’re only paying VMware for the hypervisor layer, and you continue leveraging your existing investments for everything else. There’s no sense paying a premium for bundled features you won’t use.
• If you want to standardize on VMware’s full infrastructure stack (and you plan to utilize those capabilities fully), VCF can be cost-competitive or even lower cost over a few years. Especially in scenario B-type cases, the all-in-one subscription can streamline costs and potentially reduce spending on other vendors. But that’s true only if you actually replace those other solutions with VCF’s components.
• Beware of the “unused bundle” trap. It’s tempting to think a bundle is a good deal because it offers a bit of everything. In practice, any component of VCF that you don’t deploy is wasted money. For instance, paying for NSX in the bundle but never rolling it out means your effective cost for just using vSphere+vSAN is higher than necessary. Make sure your roadmap for the next 12–18 months includes using the major components of VCF if you choose that route.
• Account for future growth or changes. A three-year horizon is long enough that your needs may evolve. If you might expand capacity, need new storage, or plan a cloud migration during this period, include those in the model or run a separate scenario. For example, if you expect to retire an old SAN in year 2, maybe scenario A’s costs will go up (you’ll have to buy something new) while scenario B might shine (simply expand vSAN usage).
• Focus on defensible numbers. Executives and finance teams like to see where the costs come from. A model that clearly delineates each cost category for both vSphere+ and VCF – and ties back to concrete assumptions – will make your recommendation credible. Rather than saying “VCF is more expensive” or “VCF might save money,” you’ll be able to pinpoint, for example, “VCF costs $X more in licensing but lets us avoid $Y in other purchases, resulting in a net $Z difference.”

Checklist – How to Build Your 3-Year Cost Model

Before you finalize any decisions, build out your own 3-year cost comparison. Use this checklist to ensure you’ve covered all bases in your model:

• Confirm your inventory: Document the number of hosts, the cores per host, and calculate the total cores (C) that will be licensed. Verify these against any minimum licensing requirements (e.g., VMware’s per-CPU core minimums) so you don’t underestimate license counts.
• Define stack layers to use: Decide which layers of the stack you will actually use in each scenario. Will you stick with your current storage and network, or adopt vSAN and NSX? Make it explicit which components are in scope for vSphere+ vs VCF in your comparison.
• Price out compute separately: Get quotes or estimates for the core subscription cost of vSphere+ and VCF for your environment size (you might use list prices for modeling, or your negotiated discount). This is the foundation of the cost model.
• Include storage, network, and tooling costs: For vSphere+, add the expected costs for external storage (hardware maintenance, expansion, or new procurement if needed) and any network/SDN software or security tools required. For VCF, if you plan to use vSAN and NSX, you might eliminate or reduce those external costs. If not, include them accordingly. Don’t forget management and automation tool licensing costs if you use any (or conversely, potential savings if VCF’s Aria replaces them).
• Select support levels by tier: Determine support costs for each scenario. Perhaps production environments get 24×7 support, and dev/test gets standard support. Apply the premium support uplift only where necessary in each scenario’s cost breakdown.
• Include hardware refresh costs: If new server hardware, storage devices, or network gear will be needed in the next 3 years, allocate those costs. For example, if you plan a server refresh in year 3, include the prorated cost (maybe 3/5 of the total if servers last 5 years). In a vSAN scenario, you might budget for adding disks or flash if needed, whereas with an SAN, you might budget for a controller upgrade or expansion shelf.
• Factor in people and training: If one scenario requires new skills (for example, NSX or vSAN training for staff), include training costs. Also, estimate whether there are differences in personnel effort: for example, will VCF reduce maintenance hours, or will adopting it require temporary consulting help? These operational cost differences, even if small relative to licensing, should be noted.
• Add contingency: It’s wise to include a contingency, say 10–15% of the subtotal, for unexpected costs or price increases. Vendors can raise subscription fees, or you might need extra licenses; a buffer ensures your model isn’t too optimistic.
• Run both scenarios (and variants): Build at least two scenarios (like our Scenario A and B). It might also help to run a hybrid scenario if that’s plausible (e.g., adopt some of the stack but not all). This will illustrate the cost range and break-even points. Ensure each scenario provides a complete picture of costs over 3 years, then compare the totals.

Pro Tip: Model your “today” state versus your “future” state. In other words, one scenario should reflect staying the course (e.g., vSphere+ and status quo for everything else), and another reflects the target end-state with VCF (or vice versa). This helps stakeholders see the delta between where you are and where you could go.

5 Rules for Comparing vSphere+ vs VCF TCO

When presenting your findings or making a decision, keep these five rules in mind to ensure a fair and thorough comparison:

1. Compare functions, not brand names. Break down the cost by function (compute, storage, network, management), rather than simply comparing “VMware vs VMware.” This ensures you’re evaluating actual capabilities and needs. A cheaper logo isn’t a bargain if you have to buy a lot of add-ons to make it whole.
2. Right-size your support costs. Only pay for 24×7 premium support on the systems that truly need it. For less critical environments, standard support can significantly reduce TCO. Both vSphere+ and VCF have support tiers – use them strategically.
3. Don’t count bundle value you won’t use in 12–18 months. If a component of VCF (or any bundle) isn’t likely to be deployed within a year or so, don’t credit it in your justification. Future plans can change; focus on the tangible value in the near term. You can always enable features later, but paying for them from day one only makes sense if they’re part of your immediate roadmap.
4. Test the sensitivity of key assumptions. Do small changes in core count, support level, or storage costs swing the decision? For instance, what if you end up with 20% more VMs or if the cost of SAN maintenance increases next year? Adjust the inputs to see if one option becomes clearly better or worse under different plausible scenarios. This builds confidence that your recommendation holds under various conditions.
5. Revisit costs annually. A subscription isn’t a one-time buy; prices can change with renewals (inflation, vendor strategy, etc.), and your usage may grow. Plan to re-evaluate the TCO each year or before each renewal. This will prepare you for any surprises (like vendor price hikes or the need to true-up licenses) and keep your budgeting accurate over the long haul.

Pro Tip: The cheapest option is the one you can defend at renewal time. In practice, that means the choice that is transparent and justifiable now – with a clear breakdown of costs and benefits – will put you in a stronger position when negotiating future terms. Make sure whichever path you choose, you have a solid business case that will stand up to scrutiny both now and later.

Read about our VMware License consulting services.

Do you want to know more about our VMware Advisory Services?

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.

Name *

First

Last

Email *

Company

Message *

Submit