We performed a comparison between Citrix Hypervisor 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."The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is very fast. It also works very well for physically small servers."
"I find it very easy to manage and at a cost that small customers would never refuse (free)."
"We find there are good central maintenance and central management panels."
"The initial setup is easy."
"Scripting can automate procedures."
"The feature I find most valuable, is its performance"
"Citrix is easy to use and is stable."
"The core function enables multiple virtual machines to run on a single physical server. This maximizes hardware utilization and efficiency."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution."
"The solution is overall very good with all the facilities. It is user friendly, easy to configure, has documentation, and support is available."
"What they provide is way beyond the essential requirements of customers."
"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 has a good licensing module."
"Red Hat is the most stable system."
"Technically, the main reason why I'm using Red Hat is because of its stability."
"The price is the solution's most valuable aspect. It's much cheaper than, for example, VMware."
"We'd like them to add more automation to the product."
"The solution needs better backup facilities that are available for virtual machines to create servers on."
"The licensing costs are too high on the solution. They should work to make the costs more reasonable."
"It needs to have a more robust backup solution."
"The solution is only in English. It would be ideal if it was in Portuguese."
"Citrix could provide more tools to help the client manage the solution because we need to build our own tools in some cases. Everything is available through PowerShell, but then you need to build your own scripts to do the more advanced work."
"The graphics user interface is pretty bad."
"I would like the possibility of updating the hypervisor by applying security patches."
"With RHEV, the cyberattacks should be fewer. I want RHEV to be better protected."
"While everything needs improvement in some way, I have no specifics."
"A few features of the product do not work as well as those in VMware."
"The documentation is not as good as it should be."
"The availability of technical expertise with the solution may be limited in some areas."
"Configuring the network interfaces is much better in Ubuntu and should be improved."
"The UI should be more interactive with additional features."
"In comparison to VMware, this solution isn't as stable. We're testing it right now, and we're not trusting the stability of the product."
Citrix Hypervisor is ranked 8th in Server Virtualization Software with 46 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 33 reviews. Citrix Hypervisor is rated 8.2, while RHEV is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of Citrix Hypervisor writes "Allows us to allocate CPU, memory, storage, and network resources across VMs and minimizes downtime in case of hardware failure or maintenance". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RHEV writes "Offers frameworks with well-documented API and easy to use". Citrix Hypervisor is most compared with Proxmox VE, VMware vSphere, Hyper-V and KVM, whereas RHEV is most compared with VMware vSphere, KVM, Proxmox VE and Hyper-V. See our Citrix Hypervisor 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.
