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.
"Very cost-effective."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"I find the density of the product most valuable. It is density that a technologist can just assign page merging. This is what makes KVM one of the important players of the virtualization market."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"The KVM service is well managed with a central policy interface."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"It is the simple non-consideration we get with this product that's great. It just works."
"The most valuable feature of Nutanix AHV is the prism, it is a beneficial central management console."
"Simplicity is the most valuable feature."
"The dashboard of the solution is one of its strongest points."
"With AHV, you can run micro-segmentation, which is, on the network security level, to have network virtualization across clouds."
"The entirety of the infrastructure resides in the same product, which makes it easy to troubleshoot and investigate problems."
"The most valuable part of Nutanix is its centralized management of everything."
"The solution is user-friendly and provides good virtual machine backups. The user interface gets updated when there is a new release."
"We would like to have a software lifecycle solution included in this solution. We can handle the software needed for KVM, but also the software that we provide. A lifecycle component would be very beneficial."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"I would like to see more focus on microservices and integration with Kubernetes or OpenShift."
"The only negative aspect of needing hardware support is a fully functional KVM can be dropped. It would be nice if the support for other platforms, like ARM or Risk, were as good as the x86 one. However, with the democratization of Chromebooks based on these chips and mobile devices, it will not take long for that to happen."
"The initial setup of this solution is more difficult than some of the competing products and it could be improved."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"The product must provide better performance monitoring features."
"The solution can be pricey."
"When we need to share, publish, or encrypt something, we still need to perform it using the command line."
"Nutanix misses alerts sometimes."
"There are times when consultants, construction, or building firms need to use Beam but it can be difficult."
"If you want to install a specific operating system, you must first check to see if it is listed in the compatibility list; only then will you be able to install it, and that is one issue for now."
"It would be better if the solution's replication to another site could be efficiently optimized."
"It should focus on providing more detailed and helpful error messages. One area we'd like to see enhanced is better support for guest VMs, especially in a heterogeneous environment."
"If you have the need for special hardware like FibreChannel-Cards or such and there is no networked-way around it (such as you could work with USB Dongles via an HW-Dongle-Server of network), you have to use a separate hypervisor."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Nutanix AHV Virtualization is ranked 6th in Server Virtualization Software with 44 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, VMware vSphere, Hyper-V, 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.