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.
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"It is easy to use, stable, and flexible. It is a pretty mature product, and it is faster than VirtualBox."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"Very cost-effective."
"KVM is stable."
"It's very simple to use."
"VirtualBox provides an isolated, consistent environment"
"The most valuable aspects of the solution were the support and performance of the product and the flexibility it gives you to work."
"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 flexibility as well as performance wise and as well as data volume, we have huge volume stored."
"It is easy to use and does not require complex knowledge."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to copy bidirectionally between the desktop and the virtual machine."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the ability to manage multiple operating systems through one application."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"Technical support is not top-notch."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"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 solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"The main drawback in the solution is probably disaster recovery."
"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 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."
"There are a few bugs that need to be updated."
"This should have better support for multiple network cards and some parts of the GUI should be improved."
"I think that this solution should be more user-friendly."
"The AI and the UI could be improved. The user interface is a little outdated and the AI is not very attractive."
"The solution needs to improve the methods used for starting and stopping the machine."
"The product lacks scalability since it is for desktops and not for servers."
"The solution lacks some open source remote administration tools. The reload of individual virtual machine definitions through the vboxweb service (via its API) without restarting it and the access to shared storage (to use teleport functions) need to be improved."
"This solution needs improvement with the business continuity planning, disaster and recovery management and using centralized data storage."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 38 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.