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."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"There is a strong emphasis on availability, and they have numerous API interfaces for distributed storage and the solution is quite known for its openness."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"The most valuable feature is hypervisor. I can host at the same time different operating systems in Linux Windows."
"I find the density of the product most valuable. It is density that a technologist can just assign page merging. This is what makes KVM one of the important players of the virtualization market."
"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."
"Oracle VM Virtualbox is easy to use and does not require much training."
"This is a highly scalable solution."
"I think VirtualBox has good stability because I use it in an environment with several resolutions."
"It is easy to use and does not require complex knowledge."
"The most valuable feature of the solution is that there is no cost because it is open source."
"This product is extremely easy to install, use, has a great GUI and is incredibly stable."
"This solution can be used on many different platforms including Windows and Linux."
"The initial setup was straightforward."
"The virtual manager and the graphical QEMU for KVM need some improvement."
"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 stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"Its resource usage can be improved."
"The solution should be more user friendly. We are struggling with the command lines."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"Technical support could be better. In the next release, I would like to see an improved user interface and dashboard. This type of improvement will make it easy or help our engineers understand the solution from a requirement point of view."
"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."
"There are a few bugs that need to be updated."
"The communications setup lags. It does not connect properly so the batching and networking is a bit slow."
"The installation is difficult and could be improved."
"The solution needs to improve the methods used for starting and stopping the machine."
"This solution needs improvement with the business continuity planning, disaster and recovery management and using centralized data storage."
"It should have the functionality where if I move the mouse away from one screen, the context changes automatically."
"This should have better support for multiple network cards and some parts of the GUI should be improved."
"Oracle VM VirtualBox doesn't work properly with an antivirus tool."
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.