We performed a comparison between KVM and Nutanix AHV based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below
Comparison Results: KVM has a slight edge in this comparison. It received higher marks for its user interface than Nutanix AHV did.
"Documentation and problem-solving troubleshooting are the most valuable features. Performance (when fine-tuned and with "special" HW) is awesome, equal to or more than other enterprise closed-source solutions."
"The performance is great."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"I like that it's easy to manage. It's also more powerful when it comes to security than others. That point of view is the one consideration. The other consideration is that it's cost-effective."
"The initial setup was simple."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"It is a stable solution. I haven't faced stability issues in the solution."
"The solution is stable."
"Nutanix AHV works really well. It's much easier to administer and manage than VMware. Since we're not a large IT department within the finance sector, our team is relatively small. We don't have a huge team of IT professionals to manage all the other systems."
"The support is excellent."
"The most valuable feature of Nutanix AHV is the prism, it is a beneficial central management console."
"The most valuable feature is the integration between storage and compute services."
"The storage features and volume system are great."
"In terms of features, Acropolis is a good virtualization manager and that it is on-premise. I use almost every technology they provide."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"Nutanix misses alerts sometimes."
"The initial installation is complex. It took approximately four days."
"The licensing costs are a little bit expensive."
"Nutanix’s support team is not very efficient compared to others."
"It would be better if the solution's replication to another site could be efficiently optimized."
"The product must provide geo clusters."
"The price of Nutanix AHV Virtualization could improve."
"In the next release of this solution, I would like to see support for containerization."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 48 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is rated 8.6. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Nutanix AHV Virtualization writes "Lightweight, integrates well, and the technical support is responsive". KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and RHEV, whereas Nutanix AHV Virtualization is most compared with Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere, Citrix Hypervisor and RHEV. See our KVM vs. Nutanix AHV Virtualization 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.