We performed a comparison between KVM and RHEV based on our users’ reviews in four categories. After reading the collected data, you can find our conclusion below.
Comparison Results: KVM wins out in this comparison. Users find it very fast and super easy to use and manage. It provides excellent security and scales easily. Many users feel RHEV is lacking in some documentation capabilities and security features and that it can be challenging to scale up when needed.
"The GUI interface makes the management of KVM easier than ever before."
"What I like most about KVM is that it's very easy to use. Everything is built-in, even when writing command lines."
"KVM is stable."
"One of the best features of KVM is its user-friendly interface."
"The initial setup was very easy."
"Very cost-effective."
"The tool's most valuable feature is backup. The product makes it easy to manage virtual machines. Other tools require third-party applications like VMware and vSphere. However, KVM doesn't require these applications."
"A very reliable solution which can be used for x86 architecture virtualization with reasonable overhead."
"It's a scalable solution."
"The solution has a good licensing module."
"RHEV’s cost is much less compared to VMware."
"It is a scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature of Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization is its pricing."
"There aren't any bugs on the solution."
"The most valuable features of RHEV are all the tools, such as virtualization, management of cloud platforms, and integration of container environments. The solution has good compatibility between virtualization, content management, and cloud management. Having the full set of these tools is the advantage of it."
"The solution makes migration easy."
"Some things are pretty basic, and they could be more robust with more detail."
"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."
"One thing that maybe could be improved is making it easier to scale. It needs to be more clear on how to scale the storage space for virtual machines."
"We are not getting good support from KVM, and it is not that user-friendly."
"Lacks high availability across clusters as well as support for Apache CloudStack."
"In KVM, snapshots and cloning are areas where there could be a little more sophistication, like VMware."
"The stability of this solution is less than other products in the same category."
"There are some issues with the graphics and some software that is very complex."
"The solution should be made more user-friendly."
"We hope that Red Hat can produce a paradigm edition. We are looking for paradigm computing and paradigm storage. Its scalability can be improved. It is not easy to scale, and we hope that Red Hat can provide a more scalable system. They should also provide local service and support. Our customers are looking for a good software vendor to provide professional services."
"When we do a direct comparison, then obviously VMware does better in terms of having Fault Tolerance and doing active disaster recovery and these kind of things. This is something that can be improved within Red Hat."
"The solution could use network virtualization."
"The biggest improvement would be more third-party direct support for things like backups and provisioning through third-party portals."
"The Administration of the Oracle database and the SAP ERP needs improvement."
"Red Hat by itself is not scalable. But you can have third party add-ons like Ceph to make it massively scalable."
"We'd like it if it would be possible on Red Hat Virtualization to possibly connect two or three VMs to the same disk."
KVM is ranked 4th in Server Virtualization Software with 39 reviews while RHEV is ranked 10th in Server Virtualization Software with 32 reviews. KVM is rated 8.0, while RHEV is rated 7.6. The top reviewer of KVM writes "Delivers good performance because of kernel-based virtualization". On the other hand, the top reviewer of RHEV writes "Offers frameworks with well-documented API and easy to use". KVM is most compared with Proxmox VE, Oracle VM VirtualBox, Hyper-V, VMware vSphere and Citrix Hypervisor, whereas RHEV is most compared with VMware vSphere, Proxmox VE, Hyper-V, Oracle VM and Nutanix AHV Virtualization. See our KVM vs. RHEV 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.