We performed a comparison between KVM and Oracle VM based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading all of the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: Based on the parameters we compared, KVM comes out ahead. It has the speed, stability, and flexibility that make it a very desirable solution for today’s rapidly-changing, ever-growing tech environment. This particular Oracle product, although very mature, has not done enough to stay competitive.
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"The performance is great."
"This solution is open source and easy to configure."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"The network capabilities are good."
"The Foundation is the most valuable feature of Oracle VM."
"It's not a very expensive product."
"It is a scalable solution."
"There's a lot of space to customize the solution if you need to."
"The product is simple and easy to use."
"Oracle is probably the best database technology out there. I've never found anything as complete in terms of feature and functionality and sophistication."
"Cloning is the best feature in Oracle VM."
"I have previously used VMware and KVM is easier to use. However, they both have their strengths depending on their use cases. They are mostly equal. One of VMware's advantages is it has better support."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"We still occasionally build Interlaced Wireless Protection within our environment. The ecosystem entails areas, where we support agents, and release backup and security solutions. Collaboration with independent software vendors (ITOLs or ITOLED) is necessary to offer these solutions to customers. However, the scope of the ecosystem in KVM is not as extensive as that of VMware's. In contrast, VMware boasts a robust partner network, allowing for comprehensive customer solutions. On the other hand, KVM’s ecosystem is comparatively limited in comparison. I would like to see FT features in KVM."
"One problem I have is that it's not very scalable when it comes to resizing the VM disk dimensions. For example, if you have initially set a virtual drive to 10 GB and you want to upgrade it to 15 GB, it's not that easy."
"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 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."
"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."
"There are issues with the solution's stability since it crashes."
"The tool's price and stability could be better."
"The pricing could be cheaper. It is very pricey."
"I would like to be able to ship all of our logs. This feature could exist and I am just not aware of it."
"It doesn't monitor everything, which is a little bit more difficult. It doesn't seem to have as many features or metrics to monitor as some others do, so you have to make some homemade scripts to do it."
"There are currently issues with centralized storage."
"The performance could be better because I need to purchase a lot of CPUs to perform in the workbench."
"Deployment should be simplified."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Oracle VM is ranked 7th in Server Virtualization Software with 76 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while Oracle VM is rated 7.8. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle VM writes "A cheap option available for Linux environments which is useful for many workloads". KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and Nutanix AHV Virtualization, whereas Oracle VM is most compared with VMware vSphere, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Proxmox VE, Hyper-V and RHEV. See our KVM vs. Oracle VM 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.