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.
"It offers a high-availability environment."
"I have found KVM to be scalable."
"If you prefer command-line, there are all kinds of command-line options."
"The product is really good...One can get good performance because of kernel-based virtualization."
"KVM has a rich options set which can be directly used or via wrappers, such as libvirt."
"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."
"The most helpful aspect of KVM is the fact that the interface is so minimal. It includes just what you need to set up the VMs and manage them, and it's very simple to do so."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"I like that it has a snapshot feature."
"The product gives us the flexibility to try different machines."
"This product is very user-friendly and easy to use."
"This is a highly scalable solution."
"The solution has high performance and is easy to use."
"The most valuable aspects of the solution were the support and performance of the product and the flexibility it gives you to work."
"I think VirtualBox has good stability because I use it in an environment with several resolutions."
"The cloning is a very useful tool."
"The grid interface of KVM needs improvement. It could be more beautiful, especially when compared to VMware."
"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."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"I have encountered difficulties in getting the tool's documentation."
"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."
"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."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The AI and the UI could be improved. The user interface is a little outdated and the AI is not very attractive."
"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."
"They could improve the graphics functionality of the product."
"Having live migrations to move a running server to other hardware would be great."
"It could improve slightly with enhanced reporting capabilities that show the current status of the network."
"The solution should work to simplify the system. However, it should be flexible enough to allow for special cases."
"The technical support needs to improve."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
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.