We performed a comparison between Hyper-V and KVM based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below
Comparison Results: Hyper-V is the clear winner in this comparison it is easy to install, robust and high performing. Hyper-V, as a Microsoft product, also offers stable and ongoing customer support.
"The simplicity and intuitiveness of the platform. It was a very simple adaptation, if you have any experience in virtualization."
"The solution is highly scalable."
"We can perform maintenance on equipment during the day because we can live migrate all of the machines from one server to another."
"I have found the GUI user-friendly and having the solution be a Windows application makes it familiar to users."
"There are two very good things about this product including licensing and stability."
"I think all of these improvements are going in a good direction. For me, its direction is good and I'm very satisfied with this product."
"The solution is easy to configure."
"The initial setup is not difficult at all. It is very easy."
"I think nine out of the ten supercomputers in the world use Linux KVM, so I think that attests to the fact that it is a scalable product."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"The performance is great."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult."
"It needs to improve compatibility with third party software."
"There needs to be more functionality overall in the Hyper-V manager."
"The corrupted volume is a problem."
"The interface could be more user friendly. In addition, the documentation and security could use improvement."
"Sometimes there's a bit of slowness in the VMs."
"ometimes a server or machine shuts down and doesn't automatically restart."
"The solution could improve by having virtual restore."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"In our setup, we do not have any dashboards or orchestration, and it is hard to manage. We have 25 gig network cards, but the software driver we have only supported 10 gigs."
Hyper-V is ranked 3rd in Server Virtualization Software with 134 reviews while KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews. Hyper-V is rated 8.0, while KVM is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Hyper-V writes "It's a low-cost solution that enabled us to shrink everything down into a single server ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". Hyper-V is most compared with VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation, Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation and Oracle VM. See our Hyper-V vs. KVM 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.