We performed a comparison between KVM and Oracle VM VirtualBox based on our users’ reviews in five categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Both KVM and Oracle VM VirtualBox have their strengths and weaknesses. Oracle VM VirtualBox seems to be the more favorable choice of the two, since it offers good scalability whereas scalability seems to be an ongoing issue for KVM users.
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"The tool's most valuable feature is backup. The product makes it easy to manage virtual machines. Other tools require third-party applications like VMware and vSphere. However, KVM doesn't require these applications."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"The initial setup was simple."
"If you are a Linux desktop user, KVM is the solution to go with if you have to start virtual machines with Linux or other operating systems with almost zero extra configuration needed."
"Very cost-effective."
"I think VirtualBox has good stability because I use it in an environment with several resolutions."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to copy bidirectionally between the desktop and the virtual machine."
"It's very simple to use."
"It is easy to use and does not require complex knowledge."
"The flexibility and the closed platform, so it allows you to run in multiple platforms, Windows, Linux, Macintosh."
"The snapshot feature is very powerful; it protects us from disaster."
"Technical support is good."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its stability."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"The solution’s user interface could be improved and made more user-friendly."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"I believe KVM offers a unified answer, while ProxMark addresses orchestration. KVM lacks orchestration. If the aim is to centrally oversee multiple KVMs – let's say to freeze them – a centralized management solution is absent."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"Support for VF is needed, where you can, for example, export from VMware to KVM."
"The speed is around thirty percent slower than another competitor. This would be something to work on."
"This should have better support for multiple network cards and some parts of the GUI should be improved."
"There are a few bugs that need to be updated."
"Oracle needs to improve its hot virtual machine migration. It didn't work as intended. It should allow us to migrate between virtual machines, without stopping the database."
"I find the solution to be incredibly unstable, constantly falling over and not working properly."
"The solution is not flexible."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"It's not as robust as server platforms, nor does it need to be."
"The solution could be more user-friendly."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Oracle VM VirtualBox is ranked 5th in Server Virtualization Software with 62 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while Oracle VM VirtualBox is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle VM VirtualBox writes "The solution is versatile, simple to use, and stable". KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere, VMware Workstation and Oracle VM, whereas Oracle VM VirtualBox is most compared with Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, Oracle VM, VMware Workstation and VMware vSphere. See our KVM vs. Oracle VM VirtualBox 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.