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.
"The key aspect is that the KVM directly interacts with the Kronos. There's no clear indication of indirect communication with Kronos. It is not linked to Kronos, and interaction is straightforward without any intermediaries."
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"KVM is stable."
"Very cost-effective."
"The most valuable feature of KVM is its stability."
"The product's scalability is good...It's a very stable product."
"I appreciate the network passcode feature in KVM, as it provides a convenient way to manage DNS and cloud hosting."
"It is an easily scalable solution."
"It's very simple 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."
"The product’s most valuable feature is the ability to manage multiple operating systems through one application."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"I like that it has a snapshot feature."
"It's a pretty good product in terms of monitoring."
"The cloning is a very useful tool."
"The scalability of the solution is very good."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"Business continuity features need to be added."
"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."
"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."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"The networking with wireless devices needs improvement."
"KVM is very difficult to manage and run on daily operations."
"The KVM tech support is really bad. They are not very responsive."
"We're working with them to be able to allow the local USB ports to be ported over to the remote desktop, running VirtualBox."
"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."
"The solution should work to simplify the system. However, it should be flexible enough to allow for special cases."
"They could improve the graphics functionality of the product."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"The user interface needs to be improved."
"The solution is not flexible."
"The product lacks scalability since it is for desktops and not for servers."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 15 reviews while Oracle VM VirtualBox is ranked 5th in Server Virtualization Software with 10 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while Oracle VM VirtualBox is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Reduces OpEx and is easy to maintain, along with low memory usage and a minimal interface". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Oracle VM VirtualBox writes "Simple to use, easy to configure, and reliable". 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.