We performed a comparison between Proxmox VE and RHEV based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Server Virtualization Software solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Saves a lot of time compared to imaging physical desktops."
"It's been a stable solution."
"KVM hypervisor is a valuable part of the solution."
"The solution's maintenance part was very easy."
"The virtualization is good."
"The setup is very easy."
"The solution is stable."
"We can access the product from iPhone 7. It is stable and easy."
"Stability and speed are the most valuable aspects."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
"Customers are moving to open source and Red Hat is the leader in this particular space. I think customers feel more confident running Red Hat Virtualization than VMware."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"The solution is stable."
"The initial setup is fairly straightforward and well-documented. The process is very similar to its competitors. The success of your setup depends on how well you plan."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"It's a scalable solution."
"The management can be better. It's not like VMware where you can get all clusters on a single dashboard. In VMware, you can literally see all the VMs running in one cluster regardless of the host."
"The process for deployment is complicated."
"Since I face issues importing Windows OVA inside Proxmox VE, a clickable button should be added to select the OVA format and import it inside Proxmox VE."
"The compatibility with non-English operating systems needs to be improved."
"The only disadvantage of Proxmox VE is that it is a young solution so it does have some bugs."
"It is difficult to remove a virtual machine."
"Proxmox VE can improve by importing OVF or OVA files directly from OVA. I need to convert all the images to raw images before importing them to Proxmox VE. If there is a solution that I can import directly from VMDK, it would be better."
"There should be a helm feature for managing Kubernetes ports directly from the Proxmox traffic interface."
"Customers are not aware of this solution, they can improve by providing more awareness and solution availability."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"We would like the dashboard feature of this solution to be improved, as it is not very detailed at present."
"The support is tricky in a few places. We're facing some challenges within Malaysia where we don't really have the system integrators available who can provide extended support. When we need personnel on-site, we can't get them."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"It lags behind in that you need to go to something like Fedora to get all the extra bells and whistles."
Proxmox VE is ranked 1st in Server Virtualization Software with 58 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 32 reviews. Proxmox VE is rated 8.6, while RHEV is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Proxmox VE writes "Easy to use and supports multi-monitors on multiple VMs in KVM". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RHEV writes "Offers frameworks with well-documented API and easy to use". Proxmox VE is most compared with VMware vSphere, Oracle VM VirtualBox, KVM, Nutanix AHV Virtualization and OpenVZ, whereas RHEV is most compared with VMware vSphere, KVM, Hyper-V, Oracle VM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization. See our Proxmox VE vs. RHEV report.
See our list of best Server Virtualization Software vendors.
We monitor all Server Virtualization Software reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.