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 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."
"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."
"I like that this is an open-source solution. It is very powerful, and it's easy."
"Good screen and keyboard sharing feature."
"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."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"Scaling the solution is easy. You just have to add more hardware."
"It is an open ecosystem, and we see there is a benefit in open-source solutions."
"The snapshot feature is very powerful; it protects us from disaster."
"The solution is very stable."
"Oracle VM VirtualBox has a platform where the support team responds to frequently asked questions by its users. Every time I have had issues with Oracle VM VirtualBox, I always get a solution from Oracle's online platform or GitHub."
"The installation is easy."
"The versatility, simplicity, and stability of the product are it's most valuable features."
"This product is extremely easy to install, use, has a great GUI and is incredibly stable."
"I like that Oracle VM is safe and stable. It is also very easy to administer. For example, opening a VM or adding a host adapter is extremely easy."
"The solution's most valuable feature is its stability."
"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."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"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."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"Monitoring and resolution could be improved."
"The solution has to do a better job of promoting the product and its licensing capabilities."
"We're working with them to be able to allow the local USB ports to be ported over to the remote desktop, running VirtualBox."
"Having live migrations to move a running server to other hardware would be great."
"This should have better support for multiple network cards and some parts of the GUI should be improved."
"It should have the functionality where if I move the mouse away from one screen, the context changes automatically."
"The communications setup lags. It does not connect properly so the batching and networking is a bit slow."
"The solution needs to improve its flexibility. It's not as flexible as VMware."
"It could improve slightly with enhanced reporting capabilities that show the current status of the network."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while Oracle VM VirtualBox is ranked 5th in Server Virtualization Software with 61 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.